R v Boater.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Wed Mar 10 2004
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
OLUWAYEMISI DIYA EVIDENCE LW518 SEMINAR LEADER: STEVE UGLOW SEMINAR GROUP 8 12TH MARCH 2003 R v Boater Boater is charged under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 which states that "a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. . Boater admits injecting the dog but denies having the requisite intent1. Defence of accident as a result of the mislabelling of the ampoule which he claims was labelled as a harmless 'muscle relaxant'. This provides him with a shield against cross-examination on his record and bad character2. Facts in issue: Did Boater intend to kill the dog and was he reckless as to his actions? The main issue here is that did he have the knowledge/awareness of his actions and what was going on? Mr...


