Criminal Liability Analysis Of Todd, Claire, And Ahmed Assignment Sample

• Type Assignment
• Downloads546
• Pages7
• Words1772

Introduction to Criminal Liability Analysis Of Todd, Claire, And Ahmed

1. Todd's Criminal Liability

Issue Identification

Todd's actions involve multiple offences, including assault, battery, and potentially unlawful act manslaughter, which are often analysed in academic resources such as Online Assignment Help in UK.

Offences

1. Assault:

• “Actus Reus”: The “Actus Reus” of assault is any act which causes the victim to apprehend immediate and “unlawful violence”. This means that Todd will have committed an assault because throwing the vase at Peter made Peter apprehend, he would be hit immediately.
• “Mens Rea”: The “Mens Rea” of assault is an intention to create an “apprehension of immediate” and “unlawful violence”, or “recklessness” whether such apprehension is instilled. Todd had the intention of making Peter feel in fear of hurt when he tossed the vase at him.

1. Battery:

• “Actus Reus”: The “Actus Reus” in the case of battery includes the application of unlawful force to another person. Todd's action amounts to battery since it has applied force on Peter.
• “Mens Rea”: The “Mens Rea” of battery is an intent to apply unlawful force or recklessness as to whether such “force is applied”. Todd had an intent to apply force because he punched Peter.

1. “Unlawful Act Manslaughter”:

• “Actus Reus”: The “unlawful act of manslaughter” has its “Actus Reus” in the unlawful and dangerous act which leads to death. Through, unlawful acts of violence that Todd used to attack Peter, he later fell on glass fragments resulting in his death.
• “Mens Rea”: That is the “Mens Rea” for unlawful act manslaughter is the “Mens Rea” for the unlawful act. “Mens Rea” for both assault and battery was with Todd.

Application of Law

Criminal Liability Analysis Of Todd, Claire, And Ahmed Assignment Sample

Liked This Sample? Hire Me Now

Adam Pierce 5 Years | MA

• Assault and Battery: The throwing of the vase and punching by Todd amounts to assault and battery under the “Offences Against the Person Act 1861”. Relevant cases include “R v. Ireland [1997] and R v. Venna [1976]”[1].
• Unlawful Act Manslaughter: Under the principle developed in “R v. Church [1966]”, Todd's action can be positioned and argued to represent an unlawful act of manslaughter in which the unlawful act was both assault and battery dangerous and leading to the death of Peter[2].

Defences

• Loss of Control: The defence available to Todd under the “Coroners and Justice Act 2009” is that of loss of control. He can raise the defence on the ground that he lost his control after viewing his wife with Peter[3].
• Self-Defence: Todd would most likely plead self-defence, based on his belief in self-protection upon immediate threat. Given the circumstances of this scenario, this is not a very promising defence[4].

Given that, the possibility of Todd being found criminally liable for assault, battery, and unlawful act manslaughter is very likely. He has thrown a vase and punched Peter, and such actions amount to actual bodily harm resulting in the death of Peter.

2. Claire's Criminal Liability

Issue Identification

Claire's actions involve multiple offences, including assault, battery, and potentially involuntary manslaughter.

Offences

1. Assault:

• “Actus Reus”: “Actus Reus” of assault is any act that leads to the victim fearing immediate and unlawful aggression. Claire tipped a can of baked beans towards Susan which although did not hit her, would have given Susan reason to fear immediate harm, an action which makes it an assault.
• “Mens Rea”: The “Mens Rea” for assault has not changed from the old law and it is the intention to cause the victim to fear “immediate and unlawful violence” or to be “reckless as to whether” the victim does so or not. This is because Claire wanted Susan to feel threatened by her when she threw the can at her.

1. Battery:

• “Actus Reus”: In battery, it Is the actual component to involves the use of unlawful force upon the other person. Claire throws a can at Maz it makes contact causing an injury; battery involves the use of force.
• “Mens Rea”: The “Mens Rea” for battery is the intention to use “unlawful force” or, alternatively, recklessness as to the use of such force. Claire planned to use force by tossing the container.

1. Potential Involuntary Manslaughter:

• “Actus Reus”: “Actus Reus” of the offence of involuntary manslaughter is the commission of an unlawful act that is dangerous and occasioned the death of the victim. Claire did cause a chain of events that would lead to her becoming shot but she did not directly cause the death of others. Hence, there is a real possibility that involuntary manslaughter will not even apply in this case.
• “Mens Rea”: The “Mens Rea” required to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter is the “Mens Rea” for the unlawful act committed. As for the “Mens Rea”, Claire had both for the assault as well as battery.

Application of Law

• Assault and Battery: Of the “Offences Against the Person Act 1861”, Claire's actions of throwing the can and causing harm to Maz amount to assault and battery. The case laws that are closely related to the present study include; “R v. Ireland [1997] and R v. Venna [1976]”.
• Potential Involuntary Manslaughter: These actions do not cause the death of any persons hence involuntary manslaughter may not be an option. However, according to the principles of the unlawful act of manslaughter if her actions were to cause his death, as in the case of “R v. Church [1966]”.

Defences

• Intoxication: Intoxication can be put forth as a defence by Claire because her acts were induced due to excessive intake of alcohol. However, voluntary intoxication is generally not a defence for crimes of basic intent such as assault and battery[7].
• Loss of Control: Claire might use the defence of loss of control under the “Coroners and Justice Act 2009” on the train of an argument that her emotional turmoil, occasioned by the events leading to the incident, had made her lose control of her actions.
• Diminished Responsibility: Claire would be able to plead manslaughter “instead of murder under section 2” of the “Homicide Act 1957”, as changed with the “Coroners and Justice Act in 2009”[8]. This defence is available if such an effect on her mind caused by an abnormality resulted in Claire having a state of mind that did not permit her to appreciate the nature of the conduct charged, to make a reasonable decision or to exercise any control over her conduct.

Claire is most probably going to be found “criminally liable” for “assault and battery”. Her acts of throwing the can and injury to Maz establish a good case for such offences under UK criminal law. Involuntary manslaughter would be of lesser probability since her actions have not resulted in any death directly.

3. Ahmed's Criminal Liability

Issue Identification

Ahmed's actions involve potential “offences of assault and battery”.

Offences

1. Assault:

• “Actus Reus”: The “Actus Reus” of assault is any act, which puts the victim in fear of “unlawful violence”, shortly. By grabbing Claire from behind and thereby making her to fall down the ground, Ahmed committed an assault on her because Claire felt he was going to harm her at once.
• “Mens Rea”: The “Mens Rea” of assault is the intention to cause the person to fear immediate and “unlawful violence” or the “Mens Rea” is to be reckless whether that fear is caused or not. Ahmed planned to restrict Claire, and so she felt threatened and threatened harm.

1. Battery:

• “Actus Reus”: The “Actus Reus” of battery is the use by one unlawful force on another. Ahmed made battery by grabbing Claire and causing her to fall on the ground due to force.
• “Mens Rea”: The “Mens Rea” in battery is the intention to use unlawful force or a mere recklessness as to whether the force will be used. Ahmed had a plan to apply force with his hand by touching her private part and grabbing her.

Application of Law

• Assault and Battery: Ahmed's act of grabbing Claire and making her fall to the ground will amount to assault and battery under the “Criminal Justice Act 1988”[9]. The “Actus Reus” and “Mens Rea” are present as there was an act on the part of Ahmed, which made Claire apprehend immediate harm, and the act of Ahmed also involved the application of force.

Defences

• Self-Defence: Ahmed could argue the defence of “self-defence” under the “Criminal Law Act 1967” because in so doing, he was acting to defend Susan against an imminent threat from Claire[10]. “Self-defence” is a full defence if Ahmed's actions were deemed reasonable and proportionate in the “circumstances” of the threat.
• Prevention of Crime: Ahmed could also raise the defence of “prevention of crime” under the same act because he acted to prevent Claire from assaulting Susan. This will have to satisfy the two-stage test, namely that the action was necessary in the circumstances and that it was reasonable[11].

Ahmed would probably be found criminally liable for assault and battery. His actions in grabbing Claire and making her fall to the ground provide sufficient elements to establish the offences of assault and battery under UK criminal law. However, he may have possible defences of self-defence and “prevention of crime”, which, if found to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, may reduce his liability.

4. References

• Cherniei, V., Cherniavskyi, S., Babanina, V. and Tykho, Ð., 2021. Criminal liability for cryptocurrency transactions: Global experience. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(4), pp.304-304.
• Legislation, 1861. Person Act 1861. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Legislation, 1957. Homicide Act 1957. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1957/11/pdfs/ukpga_19570011_en.pdf [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Legislation, 1967. Criminal Law Act 1967. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/contents [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Legislation, 1988. Criminal Justice Act 1988. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Legislation, 2009. Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Movchan, R.O., Dudorov, O.O., Kamensky, D.V., Vozniuk, A.A. and Babanina, V.V., 2022. Criminal liability for illegal mining: analysis of legislative novelties.
• Parliament, 1997. R v. Ireland [1997]. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/irland01.htm [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Parliament, n.d. R v. Church [1966]. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/gneral05.htm [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Robinson, P.H., 2017. Imputed criminal liability. In The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law (pp. 29-96). Routledge.
• Vlex, 1976. R v. Venna [1976]. Available at: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/r-v-venna-793165393 [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Legislation, 1861. Person Act 1861. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Parliament, n.d. R v. Church [1966]. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/gneral05.htm [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Legislation, 2009. Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Movchan, R.O., Dudorov, O.O., Kamensky, D.V., Vozniuk, A.A. and Babanina, V.V., 2022. Criminal liability for illegal mining: analysis of legislative novelties.
• Parliament, 1997. R v. Ireland [1997]. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/irland01.htm [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Vlex, 1976. R v. Venna [1976]. Available at: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/r-v-venna-793165393 [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Robinson, P.H., 2017. Imputed criminal liability. In The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law (pp. 29-96). Routledge.
• Legislation, 1957. Homicide Act 1957. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1957/11/pdfs/ukpga_19570011_en.pdf [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Legislation, 1988. Criminal Justice Act 1988. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Legislation, 1967. Criminal Law Act 1967. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/contents [Accessed January 11^th, 2025]
• Cherniei, V., Cherniavskyi, S., Babanina, V. and Tykho, Ð., 2021. Criminal liability for cryptocurrency transactions: Global experience. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(4), pp.304-304.