Consideration In Law Assignment - LAWS 216
Added on 2020-03-02
5 Pages1095 Words74 Views
Question 5(a)The issue that is present in this part of the question is if Charles can be held liable for the traumacaused to Mike due to which he could not work for several weeks. The law provides that while evaluating the harm and providing punishment for it, along with thephysical harm, the emotional harm is also taken into consideration. However, emotional harmhas not been made an element of criminal liability in such cases. On the other hand, the way thepresent case, in return of the abusive language used by Mike, Charles had smashed the glass ofbeer into Mike's face due to which it received severe cuts on his face and neck. At the same time,as a result of these injuries, Mike was so traumatized that he could not go to work for severalweeks. Under these circumstances, it is clear that Charles is liable for the injuries caused toMike. But at the same time, Charles is also responsible for the emotional harm suffered by Mike.Due to this reason, it can be said that Charles is responsible for the panic attacks from whichMike suffered after the injuries and due to which it could not attend work for many weeks.(b)In the second part of this question, the issue arises if Charles can be held liable for theft as he hadtaken away. The season-ticket and some cash from the court pocket of Jenny when she had goneto the toilet. Charles desperately wanted to see the evening performance of Romeo and Juliet,which was his favorite play and he was also short of cash. Therefore, he took the ticket and somecash from Jenny's coat pocket with the intention that we will return them at the first availableopportunity. While taking away the things, Charles was sure that Jenny will not mind anyway.
On the other hand, the offense of the has been defined as the acts involving the taking away theproperty of another person without the permission of such a person. The law generally definestheft and unauthorized taking away of the property of another person with the intention ofpermanently depriving a person from the property.1 For this purpose, two elements should bepresent, the taking away of the property of someone else and they require intention of deprivingthe victim of the property.2In the present case, both these elements are present. Charles had taken away the tickets and thecash from Jenny’s coat pocket without her consent and with the intention of permanentlydepriving Jenny from these tickets and the money. As a result, in the present case, it can be saidthat Charles is liable for the offense of theft as he has stolen the tickets and money from Jenny'scourt pocket while she was away.Question 6(a)The offense of murder requires that a person of some memory and aging of discretion shouldhave unlawfully killed another person, where malice afterthought. In such a case, the actus reusof murder, comprises of the unlawful killing of another human being. Similarly, the mens rea ofmurder is consistent in the malice afterthought.3 This has been interpreted by the courts as havingthe meaning of intention to kill. However, in the present case, David was suffering fromhallucinations. Therefore when he attacked Erica, he did not have the mens rea of killing Erica.1R v Morris[1983] 3 WLR 6972Lawrencev MPC[1972] AC 6263R v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Business Law Management | Potential Criminal Liabilitieslg...
|4
|730
|12