Protection from Harassment Act 1997


Added on  2019-09-26

3 Pages956 Words320 Views
Answers1.Joe has been pursuing Olga for a long time since he broke up with her on November 2014.He seems to be desperately following her wherever she goes as well as at her residence. He isin clear violation of Section (1) of F1 4A of Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which isabout Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress ("Protection fromHarassment Act 1997", n.d.). According to this provision, any person whose conduct –a)Amounts to stalking; andb)Either –i.Makes another person to fear that a violence could be used against his/herii.Causes a serious distress to that person that can have profound adverse effectson the person’s daily activities.So, Joe will be guilty of violating the above Act, if he knew or ought to have known that hiscourse of conduct would make Olga fear on all those occasions and, therefore, cause alarm ordistress to her.2.The Actus Reus in this case is the element of criminal responsibility. For the purpose of thisAct, it will include the willful bodily movement on the part of Joe. Its requirement will besatisfied by some particular elements – conduct, result, a state of affairs or omission. The conduct itself can be a reflective of criminal offence. For an instance, if someone liesunder an oath represents an Actus Reus of perjury, no matter whether that lie is believed orhad any impact on the outcome (Simons, 2002). As Joe had a duty to act but he failed to discharge it because he stalked Olga again and againknowing fully that it may cause her distress. Moreover, the proof of Actus Reus is the videofootage recorded in CCTV cameras. 3.The two principles of Mens Rea in this case that will need to be proved for declaring criminalresponsibility are – guilty mind or wrongful purpose or criminal intent and willfulness interms of physical element.4.The Mens Rea is the fundamental principle of criminal law. It refers to a person’s awarenessregarding the fact that his or her conduct is criminal. Sometimes, in Strict Liability statutes,the criminal liability for commission and omission is declared without designating Mens Rea(Perkins, 1939). However, in this case, there are a number of instances when Joe reflected thecriminal intent or guilty mind. He sent 600 text messages to Olga in 2015 alone after theirbreak up. The video footage clearly showing him lurking in the back of Olga’s house. Thequestion is what were his intentions when he was there in the premise of her residence? So, itis not difficult to conclude that his intentions were certainly not noble.

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
CRIMINAL LAW. CRIMINAL LAW Name of the Student: Name of

Criminal Law: Mens Rea and Actus Reus in Criminal Activity

Criminal Law: Actus Reus and Men's Rea in Homicide Cases

Mens Rea and Actus Rea in Criminal Law

Non Fatal Offences Against the Person (Doc)

Criminal Law: Elements and Case Analysis