R. V. David Harris
R v David Harris
ADVICE TO A CLIENT
This advice is directed to my client, Mr David Harris, on account of two criminal charges put against him. The first charge is for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861 The second charge constitutes of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent, contrary to s. 18 of the OAPA 1861. The initial part of this advice relates to Mr David 's first charge; of assault against his sister, Florence. With regards to the first charge, we will firstly discuss your liabilities and possible defences against s 47 of the OAPA 1861 , in relation to your sister, Florence 's injury. Firstly we will take into account the actus …show more content…
18 of the OAPA 1861 . Firstly the actus reus is that you "picked up a half a brick and hurled it at the window." Based on this it can be shown to your defence that you never actually intended to harm Abdul but wanted only to break the window, thus his injuries were caused by a non-intentional act. Therefore, your mens rea analysis also shows that your intention was to break the window of the shop and not harm Abdul. Again when examining both actus reus and mens rea elements of the case it seems you may not be liable under s. 18 of the OAPA 1861 since your act was not malicious towards Abdul nor was it intentional to harm him. However, in lines with voluntary manslaughter , where a defendant could be charged solely based on his actus reus without much regard to the mens rea behind his action, you could still be charged solely based on your actions; throwing the brick. Furthermore, since the looters saw you arguing with Mr Abdul, prior to his accident, it may seem to the jury that your action to injure him was intentional and this may go against your defence. Also, according to R v Ireland which states even silence can communicate threat, you may be found guilty for not acting towards Abdul’s benefit after you injured him. Although, you may argue as this being an omission, which is not criminally liable in UK, you could still be charged with GBH according to s 20 of the OAPA 1861. Still, you should be aware that even if we successfully defend you against this charge, you can still be charged with burglary; s 9 of the Theft Act 1968 , and for liability based on the Civil Law concept of negligence under contributory negligence of the Law Reform Act of 1945 . Also according to R v Cunningham , you, could be found guilty of causing GBH to Abdul even though your action was unintentional because this case held that even if recklessness causes a victim to suffer GBH, the defendant is guilty.
ADVICE TO A CLIENT
This advice is directed to my client, Mr David Harris, on account of two criminal charges put against him. The first charge is for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861 The second charge constitutes of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent, contrary to s. 18 of the OAPA 1861. The initial part of this advice relates to Mr David 's first charge; of assault against his sister, Florence. With regards to the first charge, we will firstly discuss your liabilities and possible defences against s 47 of the OAPA 1861 , in relation to your sister, Florence 's injury. Firstly we will take into account the actus …show more content…
18 of the OAPA 1861 . Firstly the actus reus is that you "picked up a half a brick and hurled it at the window." Based on this it can be shown to your defence that you never actually intended to harm Abdul but wanted only to break the window, thus his injuries were caused by a non-intentional act. Therefore, your mens rea analysis also shows that your intention was to break the window of the shop and not harm Abdul. Again when examining both actus reus and mens rea elements of the case it seems you may not be liable under s. 18 of the OAPA 1861 since your act was not malicious towards Abdul nor was it intentional to harm him. However, in lines with voluntary manslaughter , where a defendant could be charged solely based on his actus reus without much regard to the mens rea behind his action, you could still be charged solely based on your actions; throwing the brick. Furthermore, since the looters saw you arguing with Mr Abdul, prior to his accident, it may seem to the jury that your action to injure him was intentional and this may go against your defence. Also, according to R v Ireland which states even silence can communicate threat, you may be found guilty for not acting towards Abdul’s benefit after you injured him. Although, you may argue as this being an omission, which is not criminally liable in UK, you could still be charged with GBH according to s 20 of the OAPA 1861. Still, you should be aware that even if we successfully defend you against this charge, you can still be charged with burglary; s 9 of the Theft Act 1968 , and for liability based on the Civil Law concept of negligence under contributory negligence of the Law Reform Act of 1945 . Also according to R v Cunningham , you, could be found guilty of causing GBH to Abdul even though your action was unintentional because this case held that even if recklessness causes a victim to suffer GBH, the defendant is guilty.