While #2 might have brought about liability if someone had been injured accidentally, it is #2 that is of most interest. Assuming that there is some proof that Jon "thought that if Ian was hurt then it would give him and Helena more time to be together" - ie…
The collision resulted in the death of a man. Pitwood argued that he had no legal duty to the deceased, but Judge Wright held that he did have one arising from his contract of employment. While R. v. Pitwood is often regarded as a classic case of criminal liability for omission, Wright's actual words leave some room for doubt:
Thus the judge may actually have been seeing liability coming from the fact that Pitwood had left the level crossing gate open rather than the fact that he had not shut the level crossing gate. Thus did the liability come from an action or an inaction It would seem that the former occurred.
This was a case of gross negligence manslaughter, a crime that is a useful background to the whole subject of criminal liability for omission. In general such manslaughter requires the following elements:
Duty is imposed by common law statute. A breach is the failure to do something or doing something incorrectly according to the standard expected. The causal link is the fact that death has resulted from this failure with no intervening cause while gross negligence is the fact that the standard of performance or non-performance is so bad as to make it criminal.
How do Jon's acts fit into these elements First of all he had a duty to the clients of the gym because he is employed as an instructor. A gym has potentially very dangerous equipment within it - as what happens to Ian shows - and anyone employed by it has a duty of care towards the clients. There is a clear breach of duty in both 1) and 2). The breach in 1) is an example of negligence, while that in 2) moves well beyond even gross negligence into an intentional act that is designed to seriously hurt or even kill Ian. In this case the omission rises to the point of an act. He possesses both the mens rea and the actus reus for the crime of murder. If Ian had been outright killed by the weights falling onto his chest, Jon could have been charged with murder.
However, a difficult arises as to the fact that there is clearly an intervening event which actually leads to the death. While Jon was clearly expecting Ian to be injured, it was not reasonable for him to think that he would be allergic to antibiotics and that the doctor would not notice and give them to him. At the same time the but for principle is at work. In other words, but for the actions of Jon, Ian would have never been in the hospital in the first place. The intervening event and but for principles would create ...
Cite this document
(“Criminal Liability Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/law/307978-criminal-liability
(Criminal Liability Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words)
“Criminal Liability Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/law/307978-criminal-liability.
She estimated that she needed a computer worth around 200 but was told by Alec that for the kind of work she wanted a computer for, she needed one that is worth 2000. In fact the same computer is sold by the shop at 1000 but Alec took advantage of the old woman and charged her more money.
She packs her bags and goes. Not knowing what to do, Alan picks up a hunting rifle and goes in search of Clive. He looks through the pub window and sees both Betty and Clive together. Whilst taking aim at Clive with the rifle, Dennis, an old friend from the pub, staggers over Alan and gives him a hard slap on the back.
This results in Fern falling to the pavement and hitting her head, causing an injury from which she dies 2 weeks later.
In this paper I will identify the type of offences applicable to both cases; at the same time I will define what the offences are, and explain them with respected to the law, while indicating how the law applies in this case.
This answer first deals with Alan, then Ed & Doctor Fiona. It will finally envisage Alan's criminal liability for Clive & Betty's death. In order to establish liability it need to discuss actus reus, mens rea and defences.
Alan may be charged under murder or manslaughter.
Gabrielle and her personal trainer, Carl may be liable for conspiracy. At common law the offence of conspiracy was committed where two of more persons agreed 'to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means' [Mulcahy 1]. The offence of statutory conspiracy is defined in s 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1981.
(Cartwright, 1999, p. 84)
John according to the s1 Theft Act 1968 is found guilty of theft as he is depriving others from their property and particularly in the case where he steal 'roses' from one of his neighbours he is purely acting dishonestly depriving the roses from his real property owner.
The mens rea which will suffice is the intention or subjective recklessness. Intention can be categorized into direct intent or oblique intent. Direct intent will be present if it is found that the act caused was the purpose of the actor. Oblique intent on the other hand is where the jury may find the result intended even if it was no the actor's purpose, this is found if the jury finds that i) the result is virtually certain consequence of his act; and ii) he knows that it is a virtually certain consequence (R v.
In order to answer this question it is necessary to discuss Kirby J's view with reference to the scope of liability under principles of common purpose and the group or collective dimension of criminal activity have to the formulation of principles of liability.
This is referred to as CONTEMPORANEITY RULE. Substantially, the act of committing a criminal offence is referred to as the ACTUS REUS while the state of mind of the defendant at the time of committing the criminal offence is referred to as the MENS REA.
The actus reus does not just mean the act.
ched the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by paying certain Azeri officials to persuade them to privatize SOCAR and to allow them to partake in its privatization. Bourke argued that these payments were legal under Azeri law and also under the FCPA because they were outcomes
1 Pages(250 words)Case Study
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Case Study on topic Criminal Liability for FREE!