A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to - There are many pertinent issues that have been pointed out in this scenario, that could be regarded as points for Criminal Damage and Offenses against person. On the whole the whole scenario pertains to the improper actions by Malik and his failure to act. In summary these issues are: • Malik flicked his lighted cigarette which lands a few meters away in an industrial bin- Has Malik Acted recklessly? • Malik sees the White smoke and leaves the place without raising alarm-Did Malik fail to acknowledge a risk of harm? • Malik Watches the fire from a Distance- Has Malik ensured the safety of others by taking necessary precautions?
Keli Lane-Contemporary Criminal Case Original case citation: R V Keli Lane (2011) NSWSC 298, 15 April 2011, Whealy JA (1) Appeal citation : R V Keli Lane (2013) NSWCCA 317, 13 December 2013(1) Elements of the offence: Actus Reus: Keli Lane was found guilty of murder and three counts of false swearing.
I reviewed the case of Mr. Sam Superstar and Dr. Peters, in regards to possible proceedings and to which party would be at fault. I have found that in this case both parties could be found at fault in many different violations, both civil and criminal. Therefore there could be possible proceedings brought against both parties. It shows many aspects, of many, violations of laws. These violations range from simple breach of contract to theft of property. We will need to look into the violations more in depth. Following you will find a summary of my findings.
Read the David Miller case from Chapter 5. After reading the case, describe a reason why someone who has been entrusted with the firm’s assets would commit a fraudulent act against the company. Based upon your understanding of the case and your professional and personal experience, recommend a series of actions that should have been taken in order to pre
This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will describe the legality of the case by reviewing the
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
2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.
Ethical theory will be outlined in relation to the example case with discussion on how the case poses an ethical dilemma in the workplace. Additionally ethical theory will be considered in light of the case with
“Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.”
Part 2 of the legislation amends the Crimes Act 1958, by inserting a new section 4A. The aim of the legislators stated during the second reading speech was ‘to provide that certain acts are to be taken to be dangerous acts for the purposes of the law relating to
Please prepare an analysis of this case. Your write-up should be 4 to 7 pages. Each of the following questions should be addressed individually:
A second issue is malpractice. Malpractice issues are always present in an unstable environment where patients will seek to remedy an incident if they feel they have been harmed (Hamric, 2009). It is important to always act in a reasonable way as a health care clinician but unfortunately there are always those who are negligent in their actions as practitioners.
The risk need only be of some harm – not of serious harm, LARKIN (1943). An act aimed at property can still be such that a sober and reasonable person would realise the risk of some harm, GOODFELLOW (1986). There must be a risk of physical harm; mere fear is not enough, DAWSON (1985). The unlawful act must cause the death. The normal rules of causation apply; the act must be the physical and legal cause of death.
Recklessness would often suffice as the mens rea for the full offence, attempt was a separate and often more serious offence with its own separate mens rea.
Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable
Chris acted recklessly when he walked off into the Alaskan wilderness. One major aspect of his journey that contributed to it being risky involved preparation. As Chris prepared, he didn’t think of all aspects for survival in the wilderness, such as changing seasons and traveling. This came apparent right away as he is about to walk into the wild without boots, luckily his ride offered him a pair. After spending more time in the wild it showed that Chris should have brought more food. Also, he should have bought a bigger gun or a gun that you could differ the ammo in. This would have been beneficial for hunting different sized game. During the summer it was harder for him to find food and prepare it fast enough to eat, he may have survived