Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (Section 47 OAPA)

Other factors that a judge/magistrate must consider in sentencing are those that are aggravating and/or mitigating. Aggravating factors include the nature of the offence – was it violent, with the involvement of weapons or cruelty, was harm inflicted, was it motivated by hatred or prejudice and was it committed in company? Was the victim vulnerable, targeted due to occupation and/or was there multiple victims? Did the offender abuse a position of authority entrusted to them and/or do they have prior convictions? If any of these circumstances are present in the offence, the offender’s sentence will be more serious. Mitigating factors deal more with the nature of the offender – are they of good character without prior convictions? Are they youthful or

The accused, Greg Adamiec, was charged with assault causing bodily harm under 267 of the criminal code. The incident took place during a Manitoba Major Soccer League game on July 13th, 2009. During the second half of the game, Mr. Adamiec and Mr. Keast both attempted to gain control of the ball. Mr. Keast dove for the ball, grabbing it and the accused’s foot at the same time. The accused tried to break free of Mr. Keast’s grip on his foot by kicking him. This made the accused loose his balance in which he fell to the ground, where he continued to kick Mr. Keast in the chest throat or chin area while he was wearing cleats.

After a defendant is convicted or pleads guilty, a judge will then decide a suitable punishment (or sentence) during the sentencing phase of a criminal case. There are varying outcomes that can influence sentencing offenders, they can range from probation and community service to prison and even the death penalty. Minor infractions, misdemeanors, or offenders who plead guilty usually get sentenced almost immediately after ones convictions. In complex criminal cases such as serious felonies, the sentencing judge will usually receive input from the probation department which prepares a pre-sentence report with recommendations. Prosecutors and the defense will also speak to the judge regarding to ones convictions. There are several factors that a judge can choose from when determining a criminal sentence. These include: Does the offender have prior criminal history; Was the offender an accessory or the main offender; Was the offender under any personal stress or duress when the crime was committed; Was anyone injured; Was the offender cruel to a victim, or destructive in nature, did the offender display remorse or regret for crimes. However, not every conviction means a trip to prison. Judges in most cases have a great deal of discretion when determining a sentence. Some of these alternative sentences can include suspended sentences, community service, probation, deferred adjudication, and even fines or restitution. Furthermore, multiple sentences can be served

Words alone, even aggressive ones, can not constitute an assault and must be accompanied by some bodily act or gesture that indicate a present ability to effect a purpose. In R v Secretary it was held that the reference to ‘present ability’ meant an ability, based on known facts as present at the time of the making of the threat, to effect a purpose, and that the threat may be one of future violence, and not an apprehension of immediate violence. In this case, it was Livingstone’s aggressive nature in addition to the knife in his hand that instilled in Blyton an apprehension of a future threat of personal violence which constitutes assault pursuant to s 245 and satisfies the first condition of s

sentencing is more than six months. When someone is arrested for a crime, the court

Within the past decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of heinous crimes committed, causing some of the laws to significantly change. During the 1970s, some dramatic changes occurred when laws shifted from one extreme to another: rehabilitation to retribution. Such circumstances created an additional emphasis on the offense rather than on the offender. During the 1980s, the “get-tough-on-crime” era began; thus, radical changes in laws continued up until the late 1990s. Throughout the period of the Industrial Society, the United States had two bipolar types of punishment: harsh and lenient. Today, the main focus of the Criminal Justice System is about retribution and punishment.

Paul Haring was pulled over for fleeing from the scene of an accident. Upon contact it was found he and his passenger, a minor named Colin Morgan, were both under the influence of alcohol. Colin was cited for MIP and taken home by his parents. Haring, after failing multiple dexterity tests and blowing a BAC of 0.11 in a PBT, was arrested for OWI and fleeing the scene of an

Assault in Woonsocket seems to be a common thing to hear on the news. Therefore, I picked the total assault rates in Woonsocket and gathered this information through the UCR. This data showed me that Woonsocket had 694 total assaults in 2015. I compared this data with two other cities (with higher populations) and found that Woonsocket still had the higher total assault rate. This caught me off guard because I would have thought inner cities would have more assaults, but this wasn't the case. UCR helped gather this data while also informing me on the race, age, and gender of offenders collectively for all crimes.

On June 21, 2016, members of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Sixth District were dispatched to a call for service for an “Assault in Progress”. Officers were met by the complainant who reported that the defendant invited her over to his residence and when she arrived the defendant already had another female companion at his home. The defendant began to insult the complainant at which point she tried to leave his home. The defendant grabbed the complainant by her hair and punched her in the face and body. The complainant refused medical treatment.

goes that far. Sentencing is determined after the judgment. A convicted person may have the right to appeal the decision by a higher court and if finds a mistake that has taken place, then the court may reverse the conviction or go through the case once more.

In a case of mistaken idenity, Robert Polen assautled Walter Rutherford. Rutherford substained several head injuries Rutherford's left eye was swollen to the point that it was the size of a half tennis ball and his nose bone looked as if it was off center. Based on my training and experince both are signs of a possible broken nose and a possible broken orbital eye bone. Rutherford and other witnesses reported Polen had Rutherford pinned to the ground while punching him in the head and attempting to strangle him.The assault occurred because Polen believed Rutherford was involved in an assault which occurred to one of Polen's family members. Rutherford was not invovled in that assault and had only met Polen one other time before this incident.

During the Nemesis investigation Harry Hole tries to convince the Chief that his partner Tom Waaler is a smuggling Prince who is a kingpin. Prince has killed a lot of people and is smuggling weapons into Oslo. Since there's no evidence that Prince is being smuggled in. The Chief calls it off. Then the Chief inspector leaves for three weeks, and someone’s murdered. Harry is assigned to an investigation with Tom and Tom wants no part in it at first. Harry is already on track to getting fired from the force and forces himself to get out of his alcoholic stage. Harry starts the investigation and discovers a red five-pointed diamond under the eyelid of the victim and that a finger is missing from her left hand. Then another murder happens and this

Harry’s mood only deteriorated after the ceasefire agreement was announced. He wasn’t being listened to and he decided to make his opinion heard, in the way he knew best, at Danny Flynn’s big boxing match against Eddie Carroll. He briefed me of my mission and as always I didn’t question his orders. I just trusted his decision, despite the potential ramifications, as he was my commander. As Harry, Joe and the rest of the boys had entered the hall, I snuck away. Acting cautiously but quickly I located the vehicle, attached the device and made it live. As I re-entered the hall and was being frisked, out of the corner of my eye I saw the target Reggie Bell. I had my

The Supreme Court case, R v Murray[4], states that the appellant pleaded not guilty to one charge of murder – where the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter – where, although the appellant intended to kill the deceased, he was only criminally responsible for manslaughter because of provocation under section 304[5] - where the appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment under section 161B[6] - where there was a declaration that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence. Where the case R v McDougall and Collas[7] was applied as a precedent to the final decision of the case.

With convictions and executions, there is always a chance that someone was wrongly filed with charges.