The Term Recklessness and How It is Currently Applied to Offences in the English Law System

Furthermore, throughout sentencing and punishment various legal and non-legal measures have been implemented to ensure that sentences for those convicted are appropriate and effective to enable rehabilitation and reintegration into society and provide the community with a sense of justice and security. The provision of statutory and judicial guidelines means that limits are placed on a judge’s discretion when sentencing, thus ensuring sentencing consistency. These guidelines were established in relation to the case R v. Jurisic (1998). The defendant Jurisic, pleaded guilty to three charges of dangerous driving occasioning in grievous bodily harm. He was found under the influence of cocaine on one of these charges. He was sentences to 18 months home detention, lost his driver’s licence for one year and was put on a good behaviour bond for two years. This was through to be lenient and was appealed by the DPP. The appeal was upheld and the sentence was replaced by two years imprisonment and two years disqualification of his driver’s

The duty of easy rescue is perhaps one of the most heavily debated and most controversial topics in criminal law. The origin of this duty is Biblical and it aims to punish the so-called ‘bad Samaritan’ who fails to render assistance to a person in peril . Unlike the Anglo-American jurisdictions , most European states recognise the duty of easy rescue, albeit to different extents . Scots law per se does not impose a duty of easy rescue on ordinary citizens and failure to act constitutes a criminal offence only in exceptional circumstances; these include ex gratia close proximity relationships . In this essay, the author will purport to elucidate whether Scots law shall impose a duty of easy rescue, and if so, to what extent shall such duty be recognised in Scotland.

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

Prior to 28th January 2015, bail laws posed significant loopholes in the system and are deemed to be ineffective to achieve justice. Accused offenders may get away with bail based with evidence in the case if it does not seem to pose a threat to the community. The problem persists within the conditions set for their bail, as responsibility lies upon the magistrate or police to impose appropriate conditions. However, though conditions do vary, it possesses a significant risk if the conditions enforced were not strict enough, opening vulnerabilities for the accused to commit another crime, slipping through their enforced conditions.

This essay will argue that the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in England and Wales doesn’t provide justice for all. In particular, the institutionally racist nature of the police and courts towards Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups (BAME) will be addressed. The ‘Lammy Review’ has been instrumental in outlining the disproportionate representation of BAME groups within the CJS. In a letter addressed to the Prime minister, David Lammy reports the findings from his review. 51% of UK-born individuals from BAME backgrounds believe that the CJS discriminates against certain groups and individuals (Lammy,2016). In comparison, only 35% of the white population born in the UK believe the same statement (Lammy, 2016). Thus, choosing to focus on the

Discuss the potential criminal liability of Jonty and Patrick for the non-fatal offences against the person, including any relevant defences (50 marks)

This essay will ultimately contend that the Sentencing Amendment (Coward 's Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters) Act 2014 is an ill-founded initiative made by legislators, giving the impression of a powerful Government without truly reducing the violence. Using a close reading of each provision of the legislation in unison with extrinsic materials, this piece will outline the efficacy, necessity and likely impacts of the Act.

It’s arguable that by Lawless saying to Chalmer ‘open this door and I will do you!’ and by repeatedly striking his window, and ultimately his face, that Lawless has committed an assault against Chalmer. Lawless evidently had the intention of arousing an apprehension of physical harm in Chalmer: Rixon v Start City Casino (2001) 53 NSWLR 98 (‘Rixon’)). This was achieved by both his conduct, in striking the window: Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v Hepburn, and his statement that he would ‘do you!’: R v Ireland, as an assault can be constituted by both conduct, and words.

1: Imagine walking through Sydney Airport, excited as you wait to catch your flight when all of a sudden a brawl that can only be described as “chaotic, wild and uncontrolled” breaks out. As you watch on, frozen in fear, a man begins to aggressively beat his rival with a metal bollard, stabbing him and killing him in cold blood; How would you feel if that man was allowed to walk the streets of NSW? Walk on the same footpath as you, shop in the same aisle as you. Well this man, Mick Hawi was allowed to, as he was released on bail five years after committing this crime.

This essay will briefly discuss the meaning of criminal recklessness within the criminal law and the types of recklessness, and see what the current law states today. The essay will examine the advantages and disadvantages of using the subjective test (which is currently known today as Cunningham recklessness) regarding criminal recklessness which was used in the case of Gemmell and Richards (2003) 3 WLR 1060.

In this assignment I will define indeterminate and determinate sentencing. I will also support an argument that will be effective for addressing a crime. Finally I will summarize my assessment of the sentencing models.

The wording has also lead to a gap in the law, with, in certain cases defendants getting off a crime, which in terms of common sense he is guilty of. For instance if man in the street threatens to kill you it would be seen as assault. But if he shouts that he is going to kill you tomorrow in the eyes of the law that is not an assault, even though any reasonable person can see that it is a clear danger to the person the threat is directed to. Another area of criticism is the hierarchy of the offences; the offences are listed in terms of seriousness with the most serious offences being first in the Act.

The Court of Appeal can sometimes pay lip-service to s 8 and quash convictions because the jury were not clearly directed that the test of intention is subjective9. Nevertheless, originally an objective test was used to decide oblique intention in DPP v Smith10 which widened the MR of murder. The House of Lords held that the accused was guilty of murder for two reasons. Firstly, because death or grievous bodily harm was foreseen as a likely result of the accused’s unlawful act. Secondly, the accused was deemed to have foreseen the risk which a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have foreseen. The second ground for the House of Lords’ decision had been widely criticised as it introduced an objective element in the meaning of intention.11TheVickers12 has modified by DPP v Smith that the mental element in murder requires proof of an intention to kill or cause GBH, where the probability of foreseeing can be defined as exceeding a certain degree, is equivalent or alternative to the necessary intention. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be convicted of murder if it is established that he had intended to kill or create grievous bodily harm. In considering the construction of s1(1) [Homicide Act 1957], it can be said that an intention to cause GBH at least evidenced a willingness to

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.