Foundations of Criminal Law - Assignment Example

CRIMINAL LAW Course Instructor 23 November 2012 Likely offences the client will be charged with The offences the client is likely to be charged with are largely expressed in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which outlines anti-social behaviours, expressed as disorders that drunkards may be charged with1. In this manner, Client AM is likely to be charged with three major offences: abusing a bouncer at Jokers as a ‘fatso’, battery charges for injuring the bouncer with a bottle, and last charges are likely to be on the fact of client AM concealing information and failing to report to police who were on patrol about the danger posed by Brenda. Person who are drunk are likely to engage in abusive activities or use abusive languages towards other persons and this is considered in law as offence that intent to harm the character, mental stability, or peace of the other person. Therefore, when appropriate ground is established that the abusive language used towards another person caused harm or intention was to cause any form of harm towards the other person, then proper ground for charges may be established against client AM2. At the same time, client AM is likely to face battery charges, given that her actions of throwing a bottle at a bouncer at Jokers intended to harm the individual, which in deed took place3. After being denied entrance to the Jokers, and subsequently abusing a bouncer at Jokers, client AM went ahead to throw a bottle at the bouncer that eventually caused harm to the bouncer since the arm was cut. Although the client indicate that all these actions were done due to threats she was receiving from the colleague, charges are likely to be brought up given that the client did all these knowing the imminent results o repercussions of such actions. In other words, the intention was known (to punish or revenge) against the bouncer for denying them access to the club. The third category of charges is likely to emanate from the fact that client AM concealed crucial and important information from police who were on patrol that could have been used to avert the situation4. The client clearly indicates that her activities were largely influenced by pressure in form of threats of punishment from her colleagues which forced her to do exactly what she did. Although the client knew the grave repercussions of her actions (causing harm) to other people, she still went ahead to commit the acts, fearing the punishment of her friends. Furthermore, she express that her friend has a mental problem and was carrying a knife, which she feared would have used to harm her. With all these information at hand, the client failed in her duty to alert or notify police officers who were on patrol on the Boar Lane5. By reporting to the police, client AM would have helped to salvage the situation that night. Range of sentences that could follow The offences that charges for client AM are likely to come from invite a number of sentence decisions, and these sentences can be cited in a number of legal legislative Acts. For example, the disorderly and anti-social behaviours such as using rudely abusive language towards the bouncer are likely to invite a number of sentences. Drunk and disorderly offences are in most cases dealt with Magistrate Court and invite a maximum penalty of fine. Furthermore, the Public Order 1983 describes disorderly conduct to constitute threatening, abusive, or insulting language or expression of disorderly behaviours6. The offence is termed to ne a general minor, where it is dealt with Magistrate Court and invites a maximum penalty of a fine7. But, in case the court establishes that the abusive language or words had intention of causing distress or harassment, then the client is likely to face custodial sentence. In the second category of offence, where the client may face battery charges for harm or injury that the bouncer experienced, the following sentences are likely to follow. In a battery or assault case, the court is likely to put in consideration a number of factors ranging from intent to cause the harm, the level of the harm, location of the offence, and timing of the offence8. From this, the court is likely to come up with conclusion whether the harm or injury incurred is serious, minor, or inflict grievous bodily harm to the victim. In most cases, sentences for these types of offences fall in three categories: common assaults, ABH, and GBH. In circumstances no injury or the injury experienced is not serious; the client is likely to be sentenced under the common assault category. This category of offences (common assault) invites a sentence in form of imprisonment that does not exceed six months. But, in event that the court establishes the offence had immense bodily harm to the victim, then the offence is likely to be categorized as ABH, which invites imprisonment of more than six months9. The third category of offence is where client AM is charged with concealing crucial and important information from police who were on patrol that could have been used to avert the situation that night. Criminal Law Act 1967 (England) stipulates that individuals have moral duty or obligation to provide necessary information to relevant law enforcement agencies, where such information may be crucial in averting the likelihood of a harmful act taking place or occurring10. Therefore, individuals, who have critical information about a particular activity or issue that may cause problem, harm, or injury, and fails to share such information with relevant authorities, the individuals are likely to be charged and sentenced under the misprision of felony charges under the clause of this Act. In the United Kingdom, such offences invite a sentence of imprisonment of minimum two (2) years, although the period of imprisonment may increase depending on the evaluation of the court regarding the level of harm or injury incurred by such actions of hiding or concealing critical information to the police11. Evaluation of any defense (s) client raised in interview Client AM raises three scenarios for defense in a situation that the case goes to court. The first basis for defense is based on idea that the actions of the client did not have intent (intention) for causing harm or injury to the bouncer. The problem with this defense is that the evidence shows that the client and friends after leaving the club, after being denied access, they moved out, but moved to the back of the club, where she threw a bottle at unsuspecting bouncer at the club. Given that the bouncer sustained injuries to the hand, it is clear from the way the client executed the act was planned, had intent and the mission was to revenge by harming the bouncer. Therefore, establishing intent to commit the act is likely to affect the defense. Also, the client believes that her actions were as a result of force and threats that constituted coercion from Brenda. The strength of this defense is likely to be weakened by the fact that the client and friends were drunk; hence it is likely that their actions were as a result of influence of alcohol. In this manner, the idea of being coerced is likely to be questioned, given that these are the people the client was with throughout the night while drinking as close friends. Therefore, establishing or advancing the argument that personal friends ended up threatening and coercing, is likely to lack basis, especially due to the fact that the client made no effort to report or alert to the police who were on patrol that night. Lastly, the client believes that her actions were motivated by fear she developed due to the danger posed by Brenda, who has a mental problem. The problem with this defense is that the context, environment, association, and interaction that the client experienced that night with her friends did not raise alarm over the mental problem of Brenda. Therefore, it is likely to be difficulty to postulate that Brenda’s mental problem manifested only when they had been denied access at Jokers. The three defense grounds are strong for the case to be argued, but again, the court has to establish a number of factors for such defense grounds to sustain. In other words, the court will have to determine the sustainability of defense by evaluating circumstances, facts, context, nature, and motivation for the actions the client was involved in. As a result, if the court establishes a strong ground for intent in the actions, then the defense areas will lose ground and weight. Bibliography Crime and Disorder Act 1998 c.37 < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/contents> accessed 26 November 2012. Criminal Law Act 1967 c.58 < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/5> accessed 26 November 2012. Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.42 < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/42> accessed 26 November 2012. Public Order Act 1986 s. 4(1) < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64> accessed 26 November 2012. Read More