Is Liz Liable for Assault or Murder

Decent Essays

When assessing whether Liz is liable for assault, it is necessary to give reference to her unlawful conduct, and evaluate whether her conduct was intentional. To prove assault, three factors have to be visible. These include: the act was one of force, there was intention and the act was unlawful. We are assuming unlawfulness and thus we will concentrate on omission and voluntariness. Conduct should be voluntary in order for criminal liability to follow . It is evident that Liz was suffering from hypoglycaemia, this is classified as sane automatism, which is a defence for voluntariness. Liz had been fasting for two days (actus reus) and the accident happened on the night of the second (mens rea) this results in Liz not being liable for assault regarding the principle of contemporaneity because the actus reus and mens rea didn’t occur at the same time. However antecedent liability is an opposing principle which states that the actus reus and mens rea don’t have to occur at the same time. The above two mentioned principles are examples of crystalized categories. Thus it’s necessary to prove that Liz is a reasonable person, who has participated in fasting throughout her life and has subsequently only fainted twice, thus neither the element of negligence, or the element of intention are evident due to the contemporaneity principle. Liz couldn’t have foreseen that she would faint and have an accident, and therefore not liable for assault. Word Count: 259 Question B In

Get Access