Criminal Law: Case Analysis and Criminal Liability of Neil and Kate

This article provides a case analysis of Neil and Kate's criminal liability in a case involving the hiding of HIV diseases and assault. It discusses the relevant laws and punishments under the Criminal Justice Act and Offences Against the Person Act.

DISCUSSION FORUM CRIMINAL
LAW

Table of Contents
CRIMINAL LAW:...........................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

CRIMINAL LAW:
Criminal law:
In this present case the issues is raised regarding not using the protection while having
sex. The case is between the Neil V Kate in which due to facing frustration by the Thomas
Brown shoes, he decided to walk up and down with the mistress Kate as during such procedure
she wears stiletto boots which causes severe pain and marks on Neil body. But after showing the
prof of not contracted with the HIV, he commits the sex without using the protection. Kate also
agree with these aspects, that he is customer and thus also shown the prof. But after 3 months,
she is contracted with the HIV diseases (Alker and Watkins, 2018). As the crime is committed
under this act, as the illegal offences is committed by the Neil regarding hiding the diseases
which results in affecting the right of the Kate. In this case, the matters is firstly related to the
case of assault in which the Kate proved that after knowing the facts of carrying the HIV, still
Neil hides such things and had sexual intercourse with her. Thus, in such case the Neil is liable to
be punished under section 39 of the criminal justice act, 1988. The punishment imposed under
this act is imposed for the period of 6 months of imprisonment. This is supported with the case of
Fagan V MPC [1969] 1QB 439, in which the case stated that matters relating to not listening to
the policeman and committing crime (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, 2020).
Offences against the person act:
As under this act the offences which is made to the person regarding harming them
physically or giving mental stress which resulting in giving rise to criminal act. Under the
criminal law, if any person commit any crime which are illegal or affects the right of the person
through dealing in any illegal offences such as murder, rape. Than they are liable to be
punishable under the criminal act. Similar this situation is reliable under this act as Neil
unlawfully harm Kate regarding hiding the truth of HIV diseases (Crawford and Goodey, 2019).
Thus, in this case the laws are also imposed in respect of undertaking the matter of battery. As in
this the physical act is committed by person regarding harming the other person without their
consent of doing such illegal crime. In this case the criminal battery is concerned regarding not
disclosing the truth of contracted with HIV diseases. Thus, as per the terms mentioned under
section 39 of the criminal justice act, 1988, the punishment is imposed for assault and battery are
same, for the period of maximum 6 months of imprisonment, in case of harming any person in
sever manner (Earle, 2018). It can be explained with the relevant case of R V Ireland [1997] 3

WLR 534 as in this case, the claimant is calling three women with different time period and thus
bringing frustration and mental stress to them. In such manner, the complaint is raised against
such person regarding disturbing them through carrying random calls. But the decision is raised
regarding not calling this activity as crime, as calling people not carrying any case of assault or
battery (Psychiatric injury and assault the immediate effect of R.v.Ireland, R. v.Burstow, 2020).
In such manner, the decision is made against the person, and he is convicted under the offences
against the person act, 1861.
Actual bodily harm (ABH)
It is also stated that the same illegal responsibility is also carried by the Kate regarding
not giving any such permission to Neil in respect of not using protection. As Kate given the right
to do such things, after familiar with the facts that there are more chances of the suffering with
the HIV diseases. Thus, in respect of giving the liberty to do the sexual intercourse without using
protection is one of the major aspects which proves that the whole offences is not committed by
the Neil side (Lacey and Zedner, 2017). Thus, the less punishment in imposed upon the Neil
regarding not undertaking the matter under the criminal Act. The Neil is punishable under the
section 47 of the offences against the person act, 1861. In this the matters is stated that the actual
bodily harm to Kate is examined and thus, Neil is liable to be penalized for the punishment
which can be extended to the term period of maximum 5 years. Criminal liability imposed when
any person causes injury or harm through any of the activity which is undertaken by the other
person. In such manner the person is penalized for the offences which they committed and thus
the judgement is made through verifying the actual damages incurred.
Criminal liability of Neil and Kate:
In this case the criminal liability is determined through breaking the rule of laws which is
mainly designed to secure the right of the parties. The laws are different for different crime as if
the person are harmed through languages, then less punishment is imposed and similar in case of
harming any person physically or mentally such as in case of assault and battery, than strict
punishment is imposed. In matter of Neil and Kate, Neil is liable to be punished under the
criminal offences in respect of misleading the report regarding hiding the truth of the diseases
(Lightowlers and Pina-Sánchez, 2018). Neil also can be convicted to torture Thomas in context
of his shoes. As due to his immature nature, Thomas can't attempt for his exams and also occurs
in the face of depression. Thus, by their case, various laws such as assault, battery, actual body

harm and also negligence of medical report are charged and such laws are mentioned under the
offences against the person act, 1861 and Neil is convicted under this offence. The case on which
such decision are given is relating to the matter of torture, hiding the truth of the diseases and
also misleading the medial report which is one of the government prof of any person. In respect
of Kate, she can only offer the compensation for the damages incurred regarding providing the
better medical treatment (Walsh and Poole, 2019). The decision of the court are given in the
form of referring the matters which is previously undertaken in any of the cases and thus the fair
decision is imposed on both the parties.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Alker, Z. and Watkins, E., 2018. History, life-course criminology and digital methods: new
directions for conceptualising juvenile justice in Europe. In Juvenile Justice in Europe. (pp.
60-74). Routledge.
Crawford, A. and Goodey, J. eds., 2019. Integrating a victim perspective within criminal justice:
International debates. Routledge.
Earle, R., 2018. Convict criminology in England: developments and dilemmas. The British
Journal of Criminology. 58(6). pp.1499-1516.
Lacey, N. and Zedner, L., 2017. Criminalization: Historical, Legal, and Criminological
Perspectives. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. pp.57-76.
Lightowlers, C. and Pina-Sánchez, J., 2018. Intoxication and assault: An analysis of Crown
Court sentencing practices in England and Wales. The British Journal of
Criminology. 58(1). pp.132-154.
Walsh, D. and Poole, A. eds., 2019. A dictionary of criminology. Routledge.
Online:
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/fagan-v-mpc.php>.
Psychiatric injury and assault the immediate effect of R.v.Ireland, R. v.Burstow. 2020. [Online].
Available through: <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02810553>.