You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Finance & Accounting
Pages 10 (2510 words)
Facts Charlie, who was drunk, threw a stone at her ex-girlfriend for being unfaithful. Instead of hitting his girlfriend, he hit a shopper. The shopper was blinded in one eye. Charlie was chased by a policeman. He did not hear the warning given so the police fired at him.
It was a kind of revenge. Nevertheless, he was able to hit the shopper and not his ex-girlfriend. Knowing that it was a street, a public area, Charlie could have exercised an extra care in throwing the stone. Presumably, he was drunk so he was not able to consider the required duty of care. He was intoxicated. To note, the shopper was blinded in one eye. The question now would focus on his criminal liability if any in the instant scenario. Charlie could actually make any of the following as his defence against the shopper: (1) he did not intend to hit the shopper-- it was unintentional; (2) he was intoxicated -- this could mean that he was not in his right mind when he executed the act; (3) it was purely incidental -- he had nothing to do with the situation. On the other hand, the police officer could choose any of the following to defend himself and prove his innocence: (1) he gave a warning to Charlie; (2) he decided to fire at Charlie since he did not listen; (3) he did not intend to kill the shopper -- the killing was unintentional. To this extent, Charlie could refute the second defence of the police as he was hard of hearing. The Principles of Actus Reus and Mens Rea In determining criminal liability, there are two factors that should be considered, “actus reus” and “mens rea.” In British law, there is a need to prove the existence of the two factors so as to judge an accused as criminally liable. ...
Not exactly what you need?