Torts in UK Law - Essay Example

? Legal Framework of Protective Security Word Count: 3,000 What criminal offences appear to have been committed and by whom? Advise Carl on his legalposition both with the civil law and criminal law. What criminal charges might Carl face and what defences might he have? Who might be able to take action against Carl under civil law and on what basis? Would any other person or organisation have any legal liabilities under civil law or under criminal law provisions in the UK? I. Criminal Offences Committed and By Whom (600 words) Torts in UK law are very clear in stipulating what is negligence and what is duty of care. “The tort of negligence has developed this century largely as a result of the judgement in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson” (“Negligence: The Law of Tort, 2010, pgh. 1). In that particular case, a woman was having an ice-cream float. She happened to see something in her ginger which appeared to be decomposed snail. Since she complained to the courts regarding the company, Stevenson, having a duty of care towards herself as the buyer of the drink, she mainly blamed the company for its negligence. This was due to the fact that she had to not only seek out a medical professional, but in addition suffered much psychological stress as a result of the event. In this manner, this was an excellent case to be used as a precedent in UK law. It defined a clear ruling that basically states that everyone who is presumed to be one’s ‘neighbour’ is therefore responsible for being protected by the person who is in his duty of care. Duty of care, therefore, will be defined here. Duty of care is the obligation to exercise a level of care towards an individual, as is reasonable in all the circumstances, to avoid injury to that individual or his property.??The duty of care is therefore based on the relationship of the different parties….” (“What is the Duty of Care?”, 2010, pghs. 1-2). Since Carl and his two men in the security detail had everyone in their duty of care who surrounded them, including Ms. Rice. They even had a duty of care to the person that they ultimately hit. The criminal offences committed, and by whom, are as follows. Carl is criminally liable for having punched the blogger three times, thus injuring him with a broken nose, severe facial bruising and possible brain damage. The second party in Cheryl’s security detail, John, is probably responsible for the blogger’s broken rib, since he kicked the man in the chest. Since Martin only held the man down, technically he is not responsible for any of the damage caused to the hip-hop blogger. Both Carl and John could both be charged with Actual Bodily Harm, even though Carl was the main aggressor. What is important is that John also is seen as responsible for his actions, as well. Even though he didn’t commit the extent of bodily harm to the blogger that Carl did, he is nonetheless still responsible for his actions and should be held responsible for those actions in a court of law. Carl will probably be tried on both civil and criminal charges, which will be discussed more in the next section. As it stands for now, however, Carl must be ready to defend himself in court, and as such, certain types of defences will be discussed in a different section. Several factors must be taken into account in that section, especially the idea that Ms. Rice was fearing for her life at various points. However, the fact that Carl and his team brutally attacked the blogger with little forethought except having heard the man yell out the singer’s name precipitated an event which is sure that the blogger had no idea was going to happen. The metallic object in his hand happened to be a walkman so he could record the interview that he wanted to have with Cheryl. The blogger himself could definitely be charged with trespassing due to the fact that he had gotten into the venue without proper access to have an interview. II. Advisement to Carl on His Position in Civil and Criminal Law (650 words) Good advice for Carl is to not speak, except to his barrister. When one is in legal trouble, it is a very sound idea not to make any kind of statements to the press, because several things could happen. First, the blogger’s barrister could get a hold of such statements and use them against Carl in court. Additionally, such statements might be used against Carl in a court of law, according to the police when Carl is arrested for having attacked the blogger. Thus, any information that the police glean from Carl at the time that he is arrested gives the police extra fuel with which to ignite the case. In that circumstance, Carl’s case could go from bad to worse. Carl’s position in civil court might be able to be passed off as one of innocence, since indeed there were several mitigating factors. For example, Ms. Rice had been threatened over the phone the night of her concert. This could very well present a bit of a problem for the courts to completely consider the blogger totally innocent. If Ms. Rice was fearful for her life, it could be argued in civil court that the security detail was being extra cautious, especially because they saw a shiny metal object in the hand of the alleged assailant. Anything, it could be argued, could be used as a weapon. Further, when the blogger yelled out Cheryl’s name, that could be seen in civil court as an aggressive behavior which then prompted immediate action by her security. The fact that the prosecution yelled at its target (Ms. Rice), and the fact that the blogger was carrying a shiny metal object which could be construed as a weapon, were factors that definitely gave her security viable factors for closing in on the suspect. While Carl and his team may not be prosecuted in civil court, they will most likely face charges in criminal court for having beaten up someone who was technically innocent. He didn’t really do anything other than yell at Ms. Rice to get her attention, and the other factor is that he actually was only carrying a Walkman in order to record his interview with her which he had gone to the venue hoping to obtain. In criminal court, Carl and John could be both charged with Actual Bodily Harm, although the extent to which each man caused bodily harm is different. John would probably get a lesser sentence for having only kicked the blogger in the chest, thus leaving him with a fractured rib. However, Carl would most likely face more serious criminal charges, seeing as how the victim was treated for a broken nose, potential brain damage, and severe facial bruising. It is conceivable that perhaps John might get some community service for his part in the attack. However, it is much more likely of a chance that Carl will have to serve some jail time for having attacked the blogger. This is compounded by the fact that none of the men guarding Ms. Rice had their SIA licences—experienced as they were—not that that licence would have given them the right to beat up anyone, but it might certainly have helped the cases of both Carl and John. Carl knew karate and was a CPO, while Carl’s men John and Martin had completed supervisory courses but technically did not have their SIA licences either. This will not bode well for the men in court. If they had had their licences, it might have been more conceivable that this could be played off as a violent occurrence because someone seemed a perceived threat to Ms. Rice’s licenced security detail. However, it is a game-changer that none of the men held a current SIA licence, and could precipitate a negative outcome for Carl and John in a court of law. Nonethless, Carl does have a chance at winning. III. Criminal Charges Which Carl Might Face and His Possible Defences (572 words) Carl is most likely to be charged with negligence and Actual Bodily Harm. This means that the situation with the blogger constituted a happening that is defined under the four necessities for negligence to be considered as the main points which must be proved in order to assure the courts that Carl was indeed negligent. This blogger was definitely conceived to be a neighbor. He also met all of the other requirements as the state of negligence requires. The charge of Actual Bodily Harm would probably be brought as another charge against Carl in the criminal trial, if the case goes to trial. The blogger might actually take a settlement, if this is settled out of court, which may very well be the case. A majority of cases never get to court. Many times, defendants are quite happy, pleased even, to not allow a case to get to court. Thus, sometimes it is easier to pay the prosecution money for getting out of having to face criminal charges. That way, Carl’s record would stay clean, and the prosecution would be compensated for the punitive damages done without having to sue Carl in court. As one can imagine, settling out of court or doing some type of negotiations are always preferable to having to face criminal charges. The reason a settlement would be preferable to a trial is because Carl does not stand much chance to win a trial. Beating up a completely innocent citizen, regardless of the fact that Ms. Rice was fearing for her safety, is wrong. The fact that Carl and John--who were part of her security detail—beat this man to a pulp after knowing virtually nothing about him seemed terrible, even though he exhibited some suspicious behaviors. However, Carl, acting upon his first instincts, did not even consider to ask the man what his intentions were toward Ms. Rice. This could prove as a useful piece of evidence against the blogger in court, but Carl has a better chance of not risking his entire case by simply relying on that one sole fact. Carl needs to come up with a solid defence. He must, if he appears in court, testify to the fact that Ms. Rice was in danger of coming under a perceived threat and that this person, who was trespassing on the property of the venue, must have had to have known that he might get in some sort of trouble if he didn’t ameliorate the situation promptly. Partially, the blogger is also at fault here because he also violated the law to some extent himself. This should be taken into consideration when Carl is tried in court. To sum up, Carl is liable for his actions, although he may get a lesser penalty when the court finds out that there was a credible threat to Ms. Rice’s security. Also, the fact that the blogger trespassed will probably be taken into consideration. Carl should consider that he can make a strong defence based on the fact that there was a threat that was made toward Ms. Rice, and that the perimeter should have been secured so that no one could get near Ms. Rice under any circumstances, unless interviews were granted prior to the show. In this vein, Carl may not be held liable for his actions to some degree since the blogger was in violation of trespassing the venue at which Ms. Rice sang. IV. Who Would Be Able to Take Action Against Carl Under Civil Law and On What Basis (578 words) There are multiple people that might take action against Carl. The blogger, obviously, could sue Carl for any kind of damages outside of punitive (torts) damanges, such as violating his civil rights. Civil law usually deals with elements that can’t be dealt with in a criminal trial. Under civil law, that is where Carl could be charged with things like negligence, etc. Under negligence, as aforementioned, four qualifications must be met. In order to recognize whether Carl met the qualifications, one must consider the following. First of all, the defendant must have owed the plaintiff a duty of care as well as of through an act of omission or commission breached said duty. In Carl’s case, he would have breached those duties because, even though he had a duty of care towards the blogger since he was in the immediate vicinity, he breached those duties by assaulting the blogger. The breach did, number two, definitely cause loss to the defendant. Due to Carl’s actions, that blogger now may have some type of permanent or temporary brain damage. In addition, the plaintiff had at least one fractured rib, facial bruising that was severe, and a broken nose. These injuries are sure to cause the plaintiff monetary loss for having to pay medical bills, not to mention the psychological damage which could’ve been done by having had to face Carl attack him. This could take years of treatment by a licenced counselor to help the blogger overcome, especially if he is afraid of being unnecessarily attacked again. He may suffer in the future from agoraphobia because he might be afraid to go outside, due to fear of being attacked in the future. At this time, the plaintiff’s exact case is not known due to the fact that it depends what happens in the hospital as to whether the potential brain damage does indeed turn out to be mild, moderate, or severe. The plaintiff may have to sue the defendant in civil court for having breached duty of care, and then all other charges subsequent to that charge would be additional. Such fines that could be incurred could include a prison sentence, community service, a monetary fine, or some combination of the three. Most likely, the fine to be handed down will be a combination of all three. Because the assault was done to a member of the community of people to which Carl owed a duty of care, it is most likely that he will get at least some form of community service to be handed down to him in addition to a mild-to-moderate prison sentence due to his having beaten up this man, the blogger. Additionally, Carl may have to pay a monetary fine of some sort in order to pay for medical bills incurred by the blogger as a result of his injuries. In order to ensure that these monetary fines are paid, Carl, in the future, may have part or all of his wages garnished in order to pay for the monies that would be due to the blogger based on his damages that he receives in civil court. Although punitive damages may be sought in the criminal trial, it is most likely that the plaintiff will definitely be able to garner some sort of remuneration in the civil trial as well. It should be noted that Carl is probably going to have to face both a civil and criminal trial—the criminal trial being more serious. V. Any Person or Organization Having Legal Liabilities Under Civil or Criminal Law Provisions in the UK (600 words) There are several people and one organization who could be incriminated in this incident. (14 words) a. Cheryl Rice (100 words). Cheryl Rice could be implicated in the event because of the fact that it was her men who tackled the blogger. The blogger could sue her for her men, whom she hired, to provide her security. Alternatively, Ms. Rice could possibly sue the blogger for having caused her stress or other complaint, alleging that she should not have to worry about her safety and that the blogger infringed upon her rights to be left alone. Especially if this blogger had had a motive, his blogger could have possibly been breaking the law by interfering with Ms. Rice and her team. b. Carl (100 words). Carl is the main person who is responsible in this whole fracas. Basically, since Carl physically attacked the blogger with little more than a visual identification of a suspicious shiny metal object in his hand and a verbalization towards Ms. Rice which seemed aggressive in nature, Carl really did not have much time to react and, as such, did not even try the method of diplomacy. He just instantly reacted. If the blogger seeks to prosecute Carl to the full extent of the law, Carl may face civil and criminal penalties unless he effectively mounts a defense in his favor. c. John (116 words). John can also be implicated in his own case in both civil and criminal court. Since he obviously was responsible for the blogger having fractured ribs, it is highly likely that he will face some sort of civil proceeding, and definitely a criminal one. However, considering the fact that he did less damage to the blogger physically, he most likely will not receive as harsh of a criminal sentence. He might get, most likely, some great amount of community service, typically anywhere from 100 to 400 hours. At the end of his community service he will most likely serve some length of probation. After his probation, if he doesn’t violate its terms, he will be free. d. Martin (114 words). Martin will probably not face any criminal charges, since all he did was hold down a suspect. However, he may face civil charges in having been an accessory to Carl’s and John’s crimes. He may also be considered a person of interest in unlawfully detaining somebody. Keeping someone detained against their will is a crime, and that could be fully prosecuted by the blogger’s legal team. Martin, of course, faces less severe civil charges from the blogger’s legal team. However, that does not mean that what he did was not incriminating. He could get more severe charges if it was found he held down the blogger while Carl and John beat up the blogger. e. The Venue (71 words). The actual venue where Ms. Rice was singing could definitely be fined for having allowed the blogger into the space where Ms. Rice was. This would suggest that there was negligence on the part of the vendor by: a) not having security present all over the perimeter to secure the area; and b) not having fixed the hole in the fence which allowed the blogger to get through to the venue. f. The blogger (85 words). The blogger is partially responsible for his own demise. This is because he violated the law by illegally trespassing onto the venue through a hole in the fence of the property. This should be one concern that the defence team should find out and of which it should be advised. The defence might very well be able to construct a defence in which the blogger was partially at fault, thus diminishing the sentences of everyone else involved, and thus implicating the blogger in the incident. BIBLIOGRAPHY Negligence: the law of tort. 2010. Available: http://sixthsense.osfc.ac.uk/law/negligence.asp What is the duty of care? 2010. Available: http://carewatch.blogspot.com/2007/03/duty-of-care.html Read More