Criminal Law Assignment Sample

1.0 Introduction

The term “criminal liability” can also be referred to as responsibility that individuals undertake any criminal offence they are committed to. It is comparative that the term “criminal liability” is playing a major role to explore the responsibility of the individuals when those are committed to any criminal offense. The phrase “Aktus reus” literally translates as the “crime done” with more stress on the “criminal responsibilities”, The “mens rea” just refers to “criminal intentions” of a given person for some particular offense. The subsequent parts compare three different scenarios to find out or define the term ‘‘criminal liability’’ for the recognized person, Josh, in a hockey league. The following sections contrast 3 different scenarios in order to explain the ‘criminal liability’ of the particular person, Josh for a hockey league. Similarly, the second situation also identified the “criminal liabilities” of Rai and Frank in a bar. The third scenario identified the “criminal liabilities” between Jade and Frank in the following situations.

2.0 Discussion

It analyses the findings in relation to leadership theories, research perspectives, and their impact on nurses’ performance and patient outcomes in healthcare settings.

2.1 Requirements of Mens Rea and Actus Reus of Criminal Offences

This section discusses the essential elements of criminal liability, focusing on the mental intent (mens rea) and the physical act (actus reus) required to establish a criminal offence.

2.1.1. Explanation of the Criminal Nature of the Conduct

The “criminal activity” or the “criminal conduct” indicates the legal act for determining the social violations with the legal responsibility for protecting society from harmful events. Therefore, the crime’s nature often varies with the legal system and nature of society. The presence of the “criminal nature” is also responsible for the loss, injuries, financial harm, emotional harm and any type of damage to the properties (Ashworth, 2023). For example, the above case studies of the case between Anna and Josh help to identify the “criminal natures” in different situations.

In the first situation of a hockey league, a person of team member missed the goal. At the same time, Amir who was present in the match started to cheer and another team member Josh suddenly got angry and started to shout. Anna was standing beside Amir and turned around towards Josh. At that time Josh suddenly throws a bottle towards Amir which mistakenly hits Anna and which causes Anna to fall and her shoulder is directly hit with the corner of a chair (Saffary & Saberi, 2020). From this case scenario therefore the “guilty act” is constituted by the activity owned by John and the guilty mind for it is constituted by the intention which entails an attempt by John to hit Amir unsuccessfully with a bottle. In the case of the second situation, the “guilty act” is the act where Frank pushes Rai at the bar in the presence of Strips will cause of death of Rai is the “guilty mind” situation.

2.1.2. Definition of the requirement for “actus reus”

The “guilty mind” is the criminal mind that needs the juridical outcomes to be confirmed by a voluntary act. Both cases of indirect and direct situations are identified as the causal link between criminal outcomes and criminal actions. Therefore, the “actus-reus” is one type of criminal offence that can be assault or failure of the present legal acts of “duty of care”.

Here, in the following case scenarios, the Josh tried to throw a bottle towards Amir which constituted assault for “guilt activity” (Jovanovic, 2021). Therefore, Anna has to suffer for these “guilty activities”. In the case of the next situation, Frank pushes Rai who is responsible for hitting Rai’s head. Raim also targeted to throw a bottle that also represents the “common assault”.

2.1.3. Definition of the requirement for the “men's area”

On the other hand the “Mens rea” which draws out the position of the criminal intend, the presence of reckless and guilty state of the criminals. In this following situation, Josh targeted to throw a bottle towards the team member Amir (Kumar and Krishna, 2022). Even if Josh missed the target the intention was clear towards Amir for which Anna had to suffer. Likewise in the next scenario also Frank was acting negligently while pushing Rai through Frank knew the risk attached with such activities.

2.1.4. The main relationship between Mens Rea and Actus Reus

Mens rea which means guilty mind and actus reas which mean guilty act is primordial in setting the required criminal responsibility. Both limbs need to operate together for most crimes, guaranteeing that an individual will only be responsabile for a criminal act if he or she had a criminal purpose against the act committed (Criminal Law, 16th Edition). The principle of concurrence state that, any actus reus must be done by a person with a particular mens rea.

For example, “in R v. Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396,” the defendant’s reckless operation led to the removal of a gas meter which in effect allowed gas to leak and pose a mortal threat to a neighbour (Cowley, 2020). Whereas in the mens rea recklessness was considered to form the ingredients to be proven alongside the act for liability to be given. This case shows that action must be done with the required mental state of culpability.

In another case, R v. In Mohan [1975] QB 1, it was held that the intention (mens rea) formed the main ingredient of most crimes (Monalisha, 2020). The intention of the defendant when he endeavored to run over a police officer clearly illustrated the relationship between the actus reus which is driving recklessly .

Likewise in their case of Josh and another man, the act of throwing a bottle (actus reas) done with an intention of anger and intention to harm Amir (mens rea). Though, Anna was hurt by accident, the mens rea of Josh at the time of bushing the ball fixes the meeting of mens rea and actus reus.

2.2 Understanding of the classifications of non-violent and violent offences

2.2.1 Explanation of the Common Law Offences

Often common law offences against the person may refer to criminal instances that involve physical contact, threats, or any form of primal invasion of a person’s body (Ashworth's Principles of Criminal Law, 2022). These offences include; assault, battery and other grave offences like manslaughter and murder, and depending on the level of blame, they belong to the mentioned classes.

Assault and battery therefore serves a base of violent offences under the common law. In a case of R v. Ireland [1998] AC 147, it was defined that Assault means an act whereby one person causes another to fear immediate unlawful. Battery on the other hand refers to the unlawful application of force, certified no matter how slight, as evidenced “in Collins v. Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172” case which considered even a fly light touch without consent could amount to battery (Dallaston, 2023).

Offences such as manslaughter and murder are seen to be other levels of violation. Murder, defined in R v. Cunningham [1982] AC 566, pointing the fact that it involves unlawful killing of another person with malice in anticipation, while manslaughter could be voluntary or involuntary based on the intention and circumstances which was evidenced in R v. Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (Robson, et al. 2020).

As in the example that has been described with reference to the given hypothetical in relation to Josh and Amir, where confining oneself to the literal meaning of the action of one individual, ly, where Josh threw a bottle at Amir but missed, then the definition of ‘common law’ assault will define it as an action carried out. On the same note, an action of Josh causing harm to Anna could attract a high level ofanson and Serena could improve the magnitude of Josh’s criminal blame to battery or grievous bodily harm (GBH).

2.2.2. Description of the Fatal Statutory Found Against the Persons

The major fatal statutory offences against persons are murder and manslaughter which are acted under the “Homicide Act 1957” and the Offences Against the “Person Act 1861”. These offences respond to unlawful mannered killings with different intention and responsibility.

Criminal murder is the unlawful taking of a human being’s life with premeditation which may be either express or implied. This offence in England needs a mens rea of murder or attempted GBH, as was declared in R v. Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664, where intent to cause grievous bodily harm was good enough to convict for murder (Leigh, 2022).

Manslaughter may be classified as voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter takes place when a person commits murder with intention but is partly excused under a defence as contained in “Section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009” which relates to loss of control (Wu, 2020). For example, “in R v. [Duffy 1949] 1 All ER 932,” the defendant was able to avail himself of provocation and what was hitherto murder was reduced to manslaughter.

Expounded in the context of the story of Rai and Frank then, the act of pushing the former by the latter in what caused Rai’s death entailed the crime of involuntary manslaughter. His actions were, in this case, Negligently reckless and caused fatal harm and although he caused death, he did not intend to do so and his actions may be covered by the statutory manslaughter laws.

2.2.3. Explanation of the offences of battery and assault

Assault and battery are two different criminal offences, which is under the Offences Against the “Person Act 1861” and more often under the common laws.

Utterly, assault happens when one person puts another into immediate apprehension of unlawful violence, deliberately or negligently. Peculiarly, a physical touch is not necessary for assault to happen. For instance, in R v. St George [1998] AC 147, the court established that fear from silent telephone calls may be considered as an instance of assault in so far as the psychological ramification from the threat was concerned.

Battery, on the other hand, is a separate legal wrong, which encompasses the unlawful intentional or reckless touching of another person with unlawful force. It may be as innocent as touching, right up to causing grievous bodily harm if done without legal reason. “In Collins v. Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172,” where the common law distinguished between battery and touching as being where trespass is made where any touching beyond that which a stranger might lawfully do is battery.

Regarding the scenario with Josh, the latter could be regarded as assault in regard to Amir because there was a threat of an immediate battery in the form of a thrown bottle, which, however, hit Anna. Further exerts battery because physical may be inflicted on Anna through the recklessness of Josh’s actions.

2.2.4 Description of the non-violent offences

Non violent offences are those which are crimal acts that would not require use of force or capacity to forece to cause injury on the other person. These offences usually affect belongings, order, whereas other affect individual rights and these include thievery, deception, trespassing, damaging of property among others. Virtually all crime does not physically harm but can have very significant consequences leading to loss of property, emotional trauma, or public nuisance.

For example theft, according to the Theft Act 1968 means dishonestly taking another’s “property with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it” (Rotherham, 2023). In R v. As Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697, shows, turning around in a supermarket and replacing the price label on an item with a cheaper one constitutes theft and shows that appropriation can be a small act.

Likewise, fraud covers dishonesty having regard to the Fraud Act 2006 which tends to includes a representation or abandonment of position for the purpose of gaining a profit or causing detriment to another (Kassem, and Turksen, 2021). In R v. Ghosh [1982] QB 1053, the court set the test for establishing dishonesty where there is both an objective and subjective assessment of the defendant’s actions.

Taking Frank’s example where he tried to take Jade’s bag mistakenly intending to throw it in a hedge is a theft, because Frank knowingly deprived Jade her property without a lawful excuse thereby being a non-violent crime.

2.3 Understanding of the defences that are conducted for criminal conduct

2.3.1. Definition of the self-defence

Self-defence is a legal principle that permits actual force in protection of oneself or another or tangible property from a threat or harm. It plays a useful role of exculpation, where the defendant claims to have acted in order to prevent a wrongdoing from being committed. For this reason, laws of self-defence have both statutory bases.

According to the section of the “Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008,” defense is legal whenever the force a person used was reasonable and appropriate according to the threat that he or she was encountering (Duxbury, 2021). The courts look at the belief, from the defendant’s perspective, that the danger exists and then whether that is also reasonable in the circumstances. For instance, “in R v. Gladstone Williams [1984] 78 Cr App R 276,” the defence of lacked consideration and asserted that honest though mistaken belief in need for self defence could justify the defendant’s actions.

This study shows that proportionality is an important consideration in self-defence. “In R v. Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482,” it was established that force applied by a soldier by over killing was unauthorized, while applying force that lead to death was justified on grounds of self-defense as the response measure should correspond to the perceived threat (White, 2021).

If either Frank or Josh felt as if they were in danger, they probably would appeal to self defence as a justification. However, the court would analyse the aspect of whether their actions could refer to as having thrown a bottle or pushed someone was proportional to the perceived risk. Use of unreasonable force or force which is disproportionate, especially when there was provocation, would exclude the defence.

2.3.2. Explanation of the Insanity Defence

It is a legal rule, under which accused is not guilty of an offense due to insanity or mental disease or defect at the time of the crime, which preclude the accused’s “capacity to know right from wrong”. This is under the defence of insanity which is outined by the M’Naghten Rules of 1843 that seek to state the parameters of insanity (Johnston, and Leahey, 2020).

In M’Naghten Rules, the accused must show that his/her/its mental disorder resulted in ‘a defect of reason, arising from disease of the mind’, to resist knowledge on the act and the surrounding wrong. For example, “in R v. In R v Sullivan [1984] AC 156,” a defendant with epilepsy was held to have acted under a disease of the mind, hence meets the insanity defence.

The “defense” also needs a doctor’s report to back the plead of mental illness. Should this work, the court sanctions a special verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” and a trip to a mental health facility or treatment instead of prison.

In the given scenario the insanity defense might be applicable on grounds that if any one of them including Josh or Frank, the accused was suffering from a psychological ailment that retarded his ability to reason out the effects of his actions. However, this defence is a restricted one and legal substantial evidence are need before it can be successfully invoked.

2.3.3. Description of the Criminal Liability for the Minors

Yinformation about criminal responsibility of juveniles implies that children are not capable of comprehending consequences of their actions. Different legal systems set up an age line below which children will be deemed to have no ability to be held criminial liable. In “England and Wales it is 10 years due to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933” (Parker, 2021).

Children between the ages of 10 and 17 are covered in the youth justice system that mostly focuses on punishment in form of rehabilitation. But they can still be prosecuted for it but it must be proven that the accused knew that his actions were unlawful. For example, “in the case of R v. R V T [2009] EWCA Crim 559,” the court ruled that a minor could be tried for grave offenses such as murder if the proof provided proved that the juvenile had a purpose of doing it.

Plea ignorance is also relevant where the court is determining its ruling depending on the background, mental health state of the underage, and factors relating to the commission of the offense. Community orders, for instance, or settings up young detainees, are expected to reintegrate the youth and not punish them.

In the framework of the case, if there is a question of juvenile involvement the age and mental development of the juvenile influences the evaluation of the criminal responsibility to an extent. The law would focus on correcting the behaviour in relation to the conduct and at the same time achieve justice.

Comprehensive academic support and diverse assignment samples are provided by Native Assignment Help, featuring well-structured, clear, and plagiarism-free samples to enhance understanding and ensure effective assignment completion.

3.0 Conclusion

Following the estimation of mens rea and actus reus in different criminal offences confirm complex interconnection of the goal, behaviour and consequences regarding the matter of criminal responsibility. In the episodes with Josh, Frank, Rai, Anna and Jade, the different shades of criminal responsibility are explored – from the violent ones such as the physical aggression incident to the violent ones such as theft. Such examples help illustrate what is meant by the difference between sanity and action, as applicable to criminal responsibility.

Also, the consideration of the guilt describing the kind of defences as the self-defence, insanity, and provocation reveals the essential aspects of the legal system to the concept of justice. These remnants protect the rights of a person in that individual features such as mental state and the circumstances leading to the situation are well looked at before a decision is made. The application of these principles draws focus to the reports that behaviours that are unlawful should be discouraged also take into consideration circumstances that may reduce culpability. Finally, every case entails a proper assessment of facts, circumstance and law in order achieve a just results that are acceptable to the justice system.

References

• Ashworth, A., 2023. Reassessing actus reus. Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev., 54, p.17.
• Ashworth's Principles of Criminal Law, Tenth Edition, Jeremy Horder, April 2022, Published by OUP
• Cowley, C., 2020. Reckless Enabling. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 14(1), pp.51-67.
• Criminal Law, 16th Edition, Smith; Hogan; Ormerod, Published by OUP
• Dallaston, E., 2023. Prohibition of corporal punishment and alternative justifications for the lawful use of force against children in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues.
• Duxbury, S.W., 2021. Who controls criminal law? Racial threat and the adoption of state sentencing law, 1975 to 2012. American Sociological Review, 86(1), pp.123-153.
• Johnston, E.L. and Leahey, V.T., 2020. The Status and Legitimacy of M'Naghten's Insane Delusion Rule. UC Davis L. Rev., 54, p.1777.
• Jovanovic, A., 2021. “Actus reus” and “mens rea” international criminal delagenocide. Politics & Security, 5(3), pp.3-10.
• Kassem, R. and Turksen, U., 2021. Role of public auditors in fraud detection: A critical review. Contemporary Issues in Public Sector Accounting and Auditing, 105, pp.33-56.
• Kumar, N.K. and Krishna, M.M., 2022. Development and Conceptualisation of Harm Principle and Mens Rea in Statutory Offences. Justice and Law Bulletin, 1(2), pp.6-19.
• Leigh, G., 2022. Murderous intent—The attitude of a murderer?. The Journal of Criminal Law, 86(1), pp.18-28.
• Monalisha, 2020. Strict Liability; Concerns and Challenges. Supremo Amicus, 15, p.193.
• Parker, R.A., 2021. Decision in child care: A study of prediction in fostering. Routledge.
• Robson, M., Maskill, J. and Brookbanks, W., 2020. Doctors are aggrieved—should they be? Gross negligence manslaughter and the culpable doctor. The Journal of Criminal Law, 84(4), pp.312-340.
• Rotherham, C., 2023. Constructive trusts and theft. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 54(1), pp.295-316.
• Saffary, A. and Saberi, R., 2020. The Relativistic Theory of Coincidence between Mens Rea and Actus Reus in Islamic and English Law.
• White, S., 2021. A Shield for the Tip of the Spear. Federal Law Review, 49(2), pp.210-230.
• Wu, A., 2020. Going Full Circle: Gender and the ‘Loss of Control’Defence under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Rule of Law Journal, 1(1).