Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Advise the Parties as to their criminal liability, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Mon Jun 19 2006
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
Danielle Thomas T31 Mr Peter Ramsay Advise the Parties as to their criminal liability, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory. It is apparent that the issues of Transferred Malice, Grievous Bodily Harm, and defences such as Self-defence and mistake in elation to Intoxication are relevant to Charles liability. Indeed, it is purported that neither Albert or Bessie have done anything they could be criminally liable for. It is also suggested, that Charles' Intoxication is voluntary. It seems that the potential greatest offence that Charles may be liable for is Grievous Bodily Harm under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Indeed the actus reus of the offence states the defendant must 'wound or cause any grievous bodily harm... unlawfully'. Indeed the badly gashed head of Bessie could constitute a wound under the 'continuity of the whole skin be broken' rule found in Eisenhower1. 'Really serious...
To see the full version of this document, and 145,348 others
