Criminal Law Issues in Cases - Assignment Example

The issues in the case are as follows Grievous bodily harm inflicted by Joe Mack on Pete. Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861states that: "Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for five years." Grievous bodily harm (GBH) was defined by the House of Lords in DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 as meaning nothing more technical than "really serious bodily harm". The Court of Appeal has since held, in R v Sanders [1985] Crim LR 230, that it is sufficient for a trial judge to direct a jury that grievous bodily harm simply means "serious harm". The term "inflict" should generally be treated as simply requiring proof of causation. The mens rea required is denoted by the word maliciously. In order to prove that the defendant acted maliciously, it is sufficient to prove that he intended his act to result in some unlawful bodily harm to some other person, albeit of a minor nature, or was subjectively reckless as to the risk that his act might result in such harm (See: R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421). This was approved by the House of Lords in R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1991]. Applying these to the facts, “Joe approached the man and punched him. Pete fell to the ground.” The mens rea and actus reus of Joe was shown by his punching and kicking Pete. The broken ribs sustained by Pete certainly fall under the definition of grievous bodily harm as set forth in the statutory provision and in numerous cases. The mens rea of Joe is further manifested since he already saw Pete fall to the ground yet he “carried on kicking Pete, breaking several of his ribs.” 2) Incitement of Tracey Minem for Joe Mack to continue inflicting harm on Pete. The liability of secondary parties is governed by s8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861: "whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender." In Attorney-Generals Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773, Lord Widgery CJ stated that the words in s8 should be given their ordinary meaning…. “(ii) The natural meaning of "to abet" is "to incite, instigate or encourage". Abetting is committed by an accomplice who is at the scene of the crime when it is committed (See: R v Clarkson [1971] 1 WLR 1402 and R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808). An accomplice is the defendant who has helped the principal in some way. The facts state that “Tracey yelled out, "Give it to him, Joe! Let him have a taste of what his dog feels!" By inciting Joe, Tracey is liable as an accomplice. In the given problem therefore, the doctrines in Clarkson and Calhaem are applicable since Tracey was not merely present at the scene of the crime, she was actually inciting and encouraging Joe to hurt Pete. 3) The liability of Tracey Minem for opting to keep the book she absent-mindedly took from the bookshop. Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968) creates the offence of theft. It states: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." The actus reus of theft consists of the appropriation of property belonging to another. The mens rea consists of the defendant acting dishonestly, and with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The definition of "appropriation" is provided by s3(1) which states: "Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner." As applied to this problem, the actus reus of Tracey Minem here is when she opted to keep the book which she at first absent-mindedly took from the bookshop. 4) Leo Capri inciting Tracey Minem not to return the book to the bookshop. The liability of secondary parties is governed by s8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861: "whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender." In Attorney-Generals Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773, Lord Widgery CJ stated that the words in s8 should be given their ordinary meaning…. “(ii) The natural meaning of "to abet" is "to incite, instigate or encourage". Abetting is committed by an accomplice who is at the scene of the crime when it is committed (See: R v Clarkson [1971] 1 WLR 1402 and R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808). An accomplice is the defendant who has helped the principal in some way. Relating it to the problem, Leo Capri is guilty of inciting Tracey Minem not to return the book, which she absent-mindedly took from the bookshop. 5) Robbery committed by Leo Capri against Tracey Minem. Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 provides: "(1) A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.” Robbery is theft aggravated by the threat or use of force. In R v Clouden [1987] Crim LR 56, the defendant had pulled on the victims handbag to wrench it from her hands. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was held to have been rightly guilty of robbery. As applied to the facts, the actus reus of Leo is shown when he “grabbed her purse, punched her and ran away”. Although no specific intent is mentioned, it may be reasonably inferred that Leo took Traceys purse by force with intent to deprive her of it and with intent to gain. 6) Grievous bodily harm inflicted by Leo Capri on Tracey Minem. Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 states that: "Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for five years." Grievous bodily harm (GBH) was defined by the House of Lords in DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 as meaning nothing more technical than "really serious bodily harm". The Court of Appeal has since held, in R v Sanders [1985] Crim LR 230, that it is sufficient for a trial judge to direct a jury that grievous bodily harm simply means "serious harm". The term "inflict" should generally be treated as simply requiring proof of causation. The mens rea required is denoted by the word maliciously. In order to prove that the defendant acted maliciously, it is sufficient to prove that he intended his act to result in some unlawful bodily harm to some other person, albeit of a minor nature, or was subjectively reckless as to the risk that his act might result in such harm (See: R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421). This was approved by the House of Lords in R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1991]. As applied to the facts, the actus reus of Leo is shown when he “punched her” after grabbing her purse eventually leading to severe bruising on Tracey’s upper arm. 7) Liability of Tracey Minem in consuming coffee and biscuit at the cafe without intent to pay the owner. Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968) creates the offence of theft. It states: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." The actus reus of theft consists of the appropriation of property belonging to another. The mens rea consists of the defendant acting dishonestly, and with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The definition of "appropriation" is provided by s3(1) which states: "Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as an owner." Based on the facts, the actus reus and mens rea of Tracey Minem were manifested when she eluded paying the owner of the café after consuming coffee and biscuits at the café. Bibliography: 1) Textbook on Criminal Law, 7th edition, Oxford University Press by Michael Allen. 2) Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine, 2nd edition (revised 2004). Hart publishing by G.R. Sullivan and A.P. Simester. 3) Criminal Law Text and Materials, 5th edition (2003), Sweet and Maxwell by CMV Clarkson and H.M. Keating 4) Smith, J.C. And Hogan, B. (2002) Criminal Law, London: Butterworths. 5) Elliot, C. and Quinn, F. (2002) Criminal Law, Dorset: Longman 6) Perkins and Boyce, Criminal Law (3rd edition) Read More