Major Questions in Criminal Law - Coursework Example

Criminal Law work Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Question 3 Question 2 6 Question Now-a-days, sexual harassment at work has become one of the most common criminal offences worldwide. Sexual harassment at work comprises of coercion and bullying and any uninvited activity or behaviour that is of a sexual nature. In response to these unethical behaviours in workplace, most of the nations have established certain laws and codes of conduct regarding prohibition and punishment in such casesi. In this regard, based on the provided case study, it has been identified that Tom and Ron have committed certain sexual offence. Thus, the case focuses on liability of the boss of an organization and his liabilities towards crime committed by him. In the UK, Discrimination Act of 1975 was altered to launch sexual irritation as a type of discrimination in 1986. It mentioned guidelines that if a boss treats someone less favourably on the ground that the defendants have refused and put forward any kind of harassment such as hostile, rape, humiliating and violating a person’s dignity in workplace among others, it would be judged as harassment. As in this case, the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 (SOA) and Sexual offences Act of 1956 are applicable. The Sexual Offence Act of 2003 sets offences for prosecution of proving absence at consent of sec. 1-4. The aforementioned offences are related to a person involved in a sexual activity. Sexual Violence in England often goes unreported by female and male victims. Amnesty International conducted a research, which found that 1/3rd of the public believe that a woman is answerable for being raped if she has behaved in an enticing way. Chances for having parallel mind-set also exist relating to what a woman was wearing at the time of harassment, quantity of alcohol that had been consumed and whether or not a woman had said no to the man. Prior to enactment of SOA, there was no as such statutory meaning of consent. Sec. 74 of this act states that a person contents to sexual activity, if he/she agrees to it as an option and holds the liberty and ability to make that choiceii. As per the case, Sec 75 and Sec 76 of SOA will be applicable on the boss, as the petitioner indicted the defendant of having non-consensual sex with the woman after an evening of intense alcoholic drinks. The boss when found guilty for the crime is liable for imprisonment, unless subsection 4 applies, which states that if a person is caught blameworthy under Sec 75 and Sec 76, then he/she will be prone to imprisonment for a period of maximum 6 months or a fine that does not surpass the statutory maximum limit. In addition, the person on certainty on accusation will be sentenced to captivity for tenure not beyond 10 years. Both these judgments also apply in case of rape by the boss. Based on the offence range, the court can order 7 years of jail in case of non-involvement in sex and 19 years of jail in case of involvement. The court has to provide judgement based on sec 73 & Sec 74 of the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act, so the defendant may get a discount on sentence in case assistance is provided to the investigator. The court must also account for potential deductions in fine levied in accordance with Sec 144 of Criminal Justice Act, 2003. It must also take into account, the criteria of whether awarding a lifetime ruling under Sec 224A/Sec 225(2) or an extended ruling under Sec 226A. Finally, the court must mandate to give recognition for time exhausted on bail in relation to Criminal Justice Act, 2003iii. In R v Hysa [2007] EWCA Crim 2056 case, the appellant told the court that she had consumed alcohol a lot and was smoking cannabis at the time of the incident. The woman also said that she never wanted to have sex and had done it willingly; neither had she remembered if she agreed, as she was drunk. The court of trial had made judgment that there was nothing to be answered as the proof of consent was unclear, but the Appealing Court permitted the prosecution to plead against ruling made such that the board of adjudicators can consider the conditions relating to case. In the end, the accused were finally convicted for charges of rape and forced sex without consentiv. In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256 case, the appellant blamed the accused of having sex without her approval after she had drunk a lot that night and she was unable to gather her memories about the incidents, which took place afterwards. As such, the case of appellant was a prompt remembrance whether it was due to the consequences of drinking that made her unable to recall if she had consented or she was deceitfulv. The aforementioned provided case examples provided important facts about the decisions that are made in case of sexual offence. The court must consider evidences that encircle the events and liaison between an appellant and a defendant. The court should focus on questions regarding whether it was fair to charge a person with rape without investigating, if the appellant had agreed to involve in such doings and if she was aware about sex after intoxication. It is essential to know the relationship among the parties involved because in some cases, the appellants had regretted their doings, had indicted the defendants and did not disclose about their own blundersvi. In this regard, from the analysis of the case study and UK legal system, it can be comprehended that Tom and Ron’s liability for the sexual offence in their offices can be considered as un charged as in the case of Tom’s offense, the appellant was aware of the same. Similarly, in the case of Ron, the appellant named April was drunk and was unaware of the intention. Question 2 Section 18 ‘Offences against the Person Act 1861’ (OAPA) focused on the intentional transmission of diseases. A draft bill was published in 1998, which provided the clause that injury will not involve anything that is caused by disease, apart from the reasons of deliberately causing severe damage. The draft was removal of preceding draft bill of 1993vii. On 12th November 2014, the Law Commission drafted a consultation with regard to offence against the person involved in transmitting sexual diseases to another person with or without consent in form of rape. The consultation is concerned mainly with offences against a person that are enclosed in OAPA and focuses on some questions that were previously left unanswered in the draft bill of 1998viii. The focal areas of concern of the consultation was to address if consideration must be provided to generate a fresh offence related to minor injury and to address whether the upcoming reforms are effective to tackle with the severe damage resulting from spread of infectious disease by amending the present law or in some other manner. The cases that have been well thought-out were about HIV and related diseases. Consultation addresses the cases where two members have consensual intercourse, one of them has grounds to deem that he/she has been infected by HIV or related infection and finally, the infection has been transmitted to the other person. These are categorized under Sec 18 & Sec 20 related to reckless transmission under OAPAix. In the case of R v Dica [2004] QB 1257, the court had held the opinion that the infected person had consented to have intercourse with Dica, which proved that Dica was not found guilty of raping, but the appellant did not consented with risk of spread of infection. Hence, court ruled that Dica was found guilty of doing Grevious Bodily Harm (GBH). He was convicted and charged under Sec 20x. Similarly, in the case of R v Konzani (2005) EWCA Crim 706, the trial court directed the panel of adjudicators on the aspect by affirming that it had to be certain regarding that the appellant did not consent to the risk of suffering of infection during sex. The court also ruled the guidelines that in such cases, willingness by the appellants meant to be conscious. The court made its decisions and ruled its judgment in favour of the defendant, as he had made it clear to the petitioner regarding transmission of such infection and disease during intercourse and had done so with the appellant’s consentxi. The aforementioned case examples provided important information relation to the issues raised by the transmission of disease. In this context, it can be comprehended that some people disagree to unintentional transmission of diseases that they should not be criminalized, as people can only be held accused if they were infected, which reduced their common unwillingness to be tested. They protested that it reduces the level of openness with medical specialists and creates thinking in the minds of people why to disclose their status of HIV and the condition is that society is affected by an atmosphere of irrational terror resulting in an unwanted dishonour against the affectedxii. HIV specialist doctors, health care providers and AIDS related service providing organizations must ensure a sense of obligation towards all those who are affected by such diseases and having an utmost danger of transmitting infection. HIV infection criminalization is a matter of concern, which can never be overlooked by organizations. However, the maintenance of public wellbeing accountability is not limited to these organizations. Hence, it is recommended to all that they help in coping and reducing the extent of such diseases along with making sure that added legal and societal interventions are not hampering the primary issuexiii. Thus, it can be concluded that certain issues are raised for transmission of disease without providing prior information in relation to sexual transmitted diseases that a person may possess and transfer the same to another without notifying. In this regard, the Law commission has planned to exclude disease from the concept of injury for better reformation of laws relation to offence to a person. Read More

 

Read More