Principles of Criminal Law - Essay Example

The punishment is the same notwithstanding whether the offender used a weapon against the victim or not. However for the accused person to be liable for such offences, wounding must have occurred. This means that a discontinuity of the skin must occur on the body of the victim, and at least a drop of blood must fall outside the body of the victim (Cross, 1995). It is worth noting that under section 47 of the act, bodily harm, or injury may occur to a person without directly or indirectly applying physical violence to the victim (MacDonald, 1948).

The substance of the law in such a case is whether the victim would find such acts perpetrated against them either unpleasant or harmful. The law requires that it is enough for the accused to have foreseen that physical harm to some person might result. In our case, Mr. Steven Roberts committed two acts that resulted to bodily harm and physical injuries to two victims, namely his girl friend and the alleged man whom the girlfriend was cheating with against Mr. Steven. However, the substance of the law in the two accounts of this case are different, in that, in the first account, Mr.

Steven had no intention of inflicting any bodily injury or physical harm to his girlfriend. He only meant to surprise her, an act that accidentally resulted to the girlfriend falling from the staircase and being injured. However, on the second account, Mr. Steven shoved off the man accompanying his girlfriend to make him move out of the way. In so doing, he ended up inflicting physical harm on the man, through banging him against a glass door that injured him. It can therefore, be found that while in the first account Mr.

Steven did not have the intention to harm, in the second account, he ought to have foreseen that physical harm might result to the man he shoved off (Smith, 2008). This therefore makes the two accounts different in the substance of the law, something that means the accused can be liable for the accounts differently. If not found guilty for the first account, it is likely that the second account would make him liable. Thus, it is worth treating the two accounts separately in the attempt to seek legal defense for the case against Mr.

Steven (MacDonald, 1975). The first account of Mr. Steven causing bodily harm against her girl friend appears defined within the confinement of section 47 of the 1861 act (Milton, 1996). The first account is admissible under the laws pertaining to common assault, whose punishment is the payment of a recommended fine or an imprisonment not exceeding six months or both. There is a defense available for Mr. Steven against the first account (Smith, 2005). Consent is applicable as one of the defense, where it requires that if the harm caused is not so severe, and there is a recognizable good reason for the offence, then the accused can be relieved of the criminal liability (Greaves, 2006). Since Mr. Steven’s intention was not to harm his girlfriend, then if the injury happens not to be severe, then he can be relieved the criminal responsibility to assault (Smith, 1998).

In the second account, Mr. Steven charge is under section 18 of the 1861 act because; he caused wounding and bodily harm to the man accompanying his girlfriend (Glanville, 1983). The proof that wounding was caused is the fact that there was a fall of blood from the body of the victim. The prosecution will be able to prove