Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Essay

The latter case of DPP v Carr (2002) shows many similarities, providing that arrest should and can only be used as a method of last resort, and must not be used for minor offences where the defendant can be identified . In this particular matter, a highly intoxicated Mr Carr was of the belief that police were accusing him of throwing a number of rocks, when this was not the case. This confusion led Mr Carr’s to use offensive language, which provoked the police officer to caution the accused. Mr Carr was then soon after arrested for offensive language because of the continuation of this offence, and also for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duties. The main issue in this matter was whether or not the arrest was lawful, and if so, was it improper. It is important to note that this case was decided before the provisions of LEPRA was passed by the parliament and became valid law meaning the Court had to rely on common law principles to determine its outcome. The arrest for vulgar language in this case was held to be proper because the officer had reasonable suspicion (having witnessed him swearing and

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

Over the years there has been a minimised application of mens rea within internet offences which has resulted in an increase in the number of convictions. Strict liability is frequently used for offences under the Public Order act 1986, where it is sufficient to prove a fault where the respondent posted the electronic message. Atkins v DPP [1989] Crim. L.R. 581 found that under s. 4 of the Public Order Act a person had to receive a message from the sender or someone acting on their behalf, and being retold the message did not fall under the ambit of the act. There have been problems with the Act when applying the relevant law to the offence of flame trolling as it remains ambiguous whether the referral to a person outside a dwelling that must receive the message includes somebody using alternative technology such as a mobile phone. In 1994 the POA was updated and Section 4A was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which now forbids ‘intentional’ harassment, alarm or distress. The provision was used in 2012 to prosecute a youth who had posted racist remarks on Twitter. After being prosecuted under the provision, the youth, Liam Stacey, served half of his 56-day prison term.

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

Under this act the defence of Provocation has been abolished (s.54). The requirement of the loss of control needing to be ‘sudden’ has been removed (s.54(2)) this change will make the defence more available to abused partners who kill in self-defence. This was an issue in the Ahluwalia case where eventually a diminished responsibility plea was accepted after a lengthy appeal and retrial. The new defence has also tightened the law (under s.55(6))so the loss of control defence can not be used in cases where someone has killed for revenge – as in the case of Ibrams and Gregory or for marital unfaithfulness as in the case of Davies. This may now have dealt with the long term suggestion that, due to its historical background and the nature of men as more likely to “snap” in anger, that provocation was a male orientated defence. Another major criticism of the previous defence of provocation was the reasonable person test (objective test). Prior to the new defence this part of the provocation defence was left in confusion with the House of Lords decision in Smith(Morgan) conflicting with the Privy Council decision in Holley and then the Court of Appeal following Holley rather than Smith(Morgan) thus departing from precedent. This may now be resolved because the new defence of loss of control under s.54(1)(c) seems to confirm the legal principle set out in Holley and Camplin.

The offence involving the serious assault against public officers is proposed, under the Act, to mirror that of the assault against police officers (Jones, 2015). This means that where certain behaviours are displayed in the process of the assault, such as biting or spitting at the officer, the offender is liable to a maximum prison sentence of 14 years rather than the previous 7 years (Jones,

In Stingel v Clark (2006), plaintiff, Carol Ann Stingel sued Geoff Clark over alleged historical sexual abuse claims dating from the 1970’s. In this case, the High Court had opted not to follow the earlier House of Lords authority of Stubbings v Webb, “which had denied that the commencement of a limitation period could be delayed until the date of the injured person 's 'knowledge ' in the case of an intentional assault”. Instead the High Court relied on the interpretation of Section 5(1A) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), which reads as follows:

When looking at the history of domestic abuse legislation it is clear to see there was a need for change, many were outdated, not in touch with present social views and therefore would not be effective in the present day. Old fashioned acts that promoted matrimonial privileges were no longer needed nor wanted, for example up to 1992 under common law a man could rape his wife (RvR, [1992]). With the introduction of Women’s Rights groups and pressure from the ever changing views of society the government needed to act on changing policies and addressing the problem of Domestic Abuse. It was this pressure that made the need for the Family Law Act 1996 to be made (Legislation.gov.uk, 1996), this was a civil remedy that protected people from domestic abuse. Although there was a ‘need’ for legislation to protect survivors, this legislation can be criticised as it did not effectively do so. The reason being because by making it a civil law matter meant that the police response stayed the same, they

From the beginning of the eighteenth century the rights and privileges of a person accused of a crime had guaranteed himself a fair trial. Towards the end of the twentieth century these rights had been extended to both pre and post-trial. The crime rate in the United States has been steadily increasing and many suggested that the rights of those accused be reduced. The Amendments to the Constitution alongside our present day judicial system lean heavily in favor towards the accused. Just how did the rights of the accused evolve? Are civil rights and liberties allowing the accused to get off free? The evolution of the rights of the accused and criminal cases relating will be explored to examine how they started and where they stand today.

On the other hand, the law must be analysed in regard to how efficiently it protects female victims, to be able to contrast and reflect on the overall problems. A consultation in 2014 was provided by Theresa May, which highlighted key areas where domestic abuse is an issue. Where policing of domestic abuse was concerned, arrest rates varied significantly from 45% to 90% across 42 police forces in England. Furthermore, ‘vital evidence was missed, photographs of injuries were taken in less than half of the ABH cases’ . From these facts it is clear that the authorities do not take domestic abuse as seriously as they should. One reason behind this, is due to the victim choosing to retract their statement and not to pursue down a legal route which ends up in police time being wasted. The Independent Police Complaints Commission, studied an incident that occurred in 2011, a woman successfully gained a non-molestation order against her ex-partner, however the man had breached the order over three times and ended up killing her. Negligence on behalf of the police was largely to blame here, the man claimed not to understand the order so was not held for a breach, and it was not recorded in any of the national police systems. Furthermore, only one handwritten risk assessments were completed for two incidents, so a power of arrest is actually rendered useless if it is not even recorded properly, also they did not record the level of risk, thus resulting in the death of the applicant.

The Violence Against persons (Prohibition) Act is an improvement on the penal and criminal code in relation to violence; it also makes provision for compensation to victims as well as the protection of their rights. In addition to physical, sexual and emotional abuse, many child brides in Nigeria experience female genital mutilation/circumcision, forceful ejection from home, and other harmful traditional practices stemming from long-held cultural beliefs. Females need to be convinced and have confidence in the legal system that they are not alone and that under the law they have rights. However it is evident that some child brides keep secrets of actually what is going on so as not to bring shame on the family or to hide violence either to

The Office of National Statistics Crime Survey for England and Wales (2016) reported that violence against the person offences recorded by the police rose by 24% in the latest year with the latest figures representing the highest number of violence against the person offences recorded in a 12-month period since the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002. The Offences Against the Person Act (1981) defines the violent forceful infliction of physical injury as Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH), whether this be with intent (section 18) or without intent (section 20), as ‘unlawfully wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm’ (Crown Prosecution Service, n.d.) These are indictable only offences with the charge of GBH Section 18, with intent; actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind), carrying higher penalties than that of Section 20, without intent. With a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, this reflects the significant life changing psychological and physiological ramifications impacted upon its victims.

Cross-examination is a vital part of gathering information and evidence about the occurrence and details of the crime to decide the outcome accurately. The sexual assault complainant is who usually experiences the most of cross examination. The reform to limit the cross examination of sexual assault complainants is established in the following acts; Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (Vic), Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic), Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic). During the cross examination, there are limits applied to the way and extent which a sexual assault complainant can be cross examined in trial. There is also prevention of any examination by the accused offender. It is also prohibited

Consolidated, the high steady loss rate, the bits of knowledge offered by inside and out studies and particular issue battles have created a force for changing both the methodology for managing rape and sexual attacks and also the law itself. Therefore, there have additionally been year-on-year reforms to rehearse. Encompassing rape and sexual attack were seen to be in emergency. While trying to manage the mounting weight, the New Labour government declared its arrangements to reform the law on sexual offenses.

In this essay, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 (OBFTC Act) will be discussed, and whether or not it replicates the existing common law crime of Breach of the Peace. The two will be contrasted; their main similarities and differences, and I will be giving my view as to why I believe the Act is irrelevant in Scots Law today.