A Detailed Report on Criminal Liability for Offences Against Persons

This report examines criminal liability for offences against persons, focusing on the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and related legal concepts. It explores the elements of criminal liability, including actus reus and mens rea, and discusses specific offences such as assault, battery, and homicide. The report analyzes a case study involving a bank robbery, self-defense, and the resulting criminal liabilities of the individuals involved, including Manjari, Rashi, Steve, and Jim. It delves into accomplice liability and the principles of constructive criminal liability, strict liability and the significance of criminal intent. The report concludes by summarizing the key principles of criminal liability in the context of offences against the person, emphasizing the importance of intent and the severity of harm in determining culpability.

Running head : Criminal liability for offences against person
CRIMIAL LIABILITY FOR OFFENCES AGAINST PERSON
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1Criminal liability for offences against persons
Introduction
The term offense against the individual denotes the broader area of criminal acts that
involve harm to the body, the threat of damage to the body ar any action which is committed
against the consent of the individuals. Those include risk or bodily injury or harm comprise of
domestic violence, battery, and assault. In addition to those crimes such as kidnapping,
harassment and stalking are also regarded as the crime committed against the individuals1. The
criminal liability in the simpler terms signifies that the individuals are liable under law for doing
any act which is contrary to the legislation2. If the criminal act is committed by the individuals,
the case will be prosecuted by the governmental authority in court3. The three essential elements
for defining the unlawful act which is proved by the prosecuting authority beyond judicious
doubt for obtaining the conviction of the person are as follows. Firstly there is an actual
occurrence of crime. Secondly, there is the presence of mens rea at the time of the commission of
criminal activity4. Thirdly, there is a relationship between the two factors. The fundamental
1 Robinson, Paul H. "Imputed criminal liability." “The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law.
Routledge,. 29-96” 2017.
2 Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B. "Hate Crime." “The Wiley Handbook of Violence and Aggression : 1-
13” 2017.
3 Gless, Sabine, Emily Silverman, and Thomas Weigend. "If Robots cause harm, Who is to
blame? Self-driving Cars and Criminal Liability." New Criminal Law Review: “An International
and Interdisciplinary Journal 19.3: 412-436” 2016.

2Criminal liability for offences against persons
statute that deals with the criminal act of violence that is committed against the person comes
under the ambit of Offences Against the Person Act, 18615.
Discussions
The matter that affects criminal liability under Offences against the Person Act, 1861 in
order to constitute a criminal offense by the act thee should be a fault in the commission of an act
with the knowledge of fault on the part of that person and he fails to adopt judicious measures for
preventing the occurrence of an act. the offenses that involve grave hurt or injury need criminal
intention for causing grave injury as to the peril of severe injury6. The offenses which involve
hurt to the persons require either recklessness as to the peril of hurt or injury of criminal
intention for causing injury. In another manner for offenses against the person, the injury that is
foreseen or intended matches the injury which should occur. The liability can also arise despite
no occurrence of harm or injury to the person under the legislation governing offenses against
the person in the country of the United Kingdom. The liability of an act which does not cause
any injury or harm to the person depends on the severity of the harm occurred. The liability of
the defendant depends on what he elects to risk causing or cause7. This approach in the criminal
4 Bankowski, Zenon, D. Neil MacCormick, and Geoffrey Marshall. "Precedent in the United
Kingdom." Interpreting Precedents. Routledge,. 315-354” 2016.
5 Offences Against the Person Act, 1861
6 Boister, Neil. “An introduction to transnational criminal law. Oxford University Press”, 2018.
7 Stevens, Alex, et al. "Legally flawed, scientifically problematic, potentially harmful: The UK
Psychoactive Substance Bill." International Journal of Drug Policy 26.12: 1167-1170” 2015.

3Criminal liability for offences against persons
justice system is inclined to the principle of mens rea which is cognitive. Furthermore, the person
in order to be criminally liable should have foresight or intention of the specific impact in
liability of constructive nature. It is to say that under the structure of constructive criminal
liability the crimes would be classified exclusively on the basis of the injury caused without
having reference to the foreseeable injury or harm. The sentencing court in ever offense have
considered to the injury that caused and the foreseeable injury as liberated factors of having
equal weighting. manslaughter regarded as a crime of constructive criminal liability and is
unusual in comparison to other forms of criminal offenses8. The strict liability in the context of
criminal legislation is the liability of the person for which there no necessitate for the fulfillment
of mens rea in connection to the elements of actus reas though recklessness, knowledge or
intention might be necessary for connection to the other factors of the criminal act. the liabilities
termed as strict because there would be the conviction of the offender irrespective of the fact that
there are they genuinely ignore several factors that cause omissions or acts. In this case scenario,
Manjari went ours for shopping and for that she went to the local bank for withdrawing money.
As she went in front of the cashier department she is been pushed by a young woman who holds
a plastic bag. The woman named rishi threatened with a gun and forces them to surrender money.
Manjari hit Rashi with a bag which is heavy as it contains books. Rashi due to this fell on the
floor. Another person name steve who come with Rashi for bank robbery pushes Manjari and
shoot guns in the air. The bulletproofs glass in front of the cashier and hits Jim. When the police
arrived at the spot, Jim is dead. Rashi and Manjari were taken to the hospital where it is
examined that Rashi's neck is broken and she died on the very next day. Manjari has severe
internal bleeding due to broken ribs and a ruptured spleen. Manjari during police interrogation
8 Simbeye, Yitiha. “Immunity and international criminal law. Routledge”, 2017.

4Criminal liability for offences against persons
said that she did not intend to hurt Rashi. Steve is arrested and Manjari is hospitalized for three
months but eventually recovers. It is discovered that the plastic bag that carried by Rashi does
not contain a gun but banana. In discussing the criminal liability of Manjari, Raashi, Steve and
Jim, the following factors are taken in regard. As Raashi entered into the bank with the criminal
intent of committing robbery and Manjari in the act of self-defense in order to save herself from
criminal act she hits Raashi with the bag. The main element for constituting an act as criminal for
raising liability is the presence of mens rea; however, there is no mens rea on an act of Manjari.
The act committed by Raashi is construed to be criminal in the context of the criminal justice
structure of United Kingdon. She entered the bank with the intention of committing the robbery.
Thus as there is the presence of mens rea or criminal intent at the time of occurrence of act Rashi
is held criminally liable. Steve who came along with Raashi for committing the same act thus he
is regarded as a participant in the criminal conspiracy which prima facie held him criminally
liable. In addition to that, he is also liable for homicide which is treated as a severe crime. The
act of homicide implies the killing of one [erson by another with criminal intent for causing
serious injury or death illegally. It is laid down under the criminal statutes of the United
Kingdom that the person who charged for the offense of murder shall be held criminally liable
for the same penalty as prior to the murder conviction he has whether prior or after the enactment
of the legislation. Thus Steve is criminally liable for the homicide of Jim as due to the act of
Steve, Jim gets severely injured resulting in death. There is the presence of mens rea and
wrongful intent on the mind of Steve at the time of committing the act. Jim who is cashier, has
no criminal liability as he is victimized by the actions of others.

5Criminal liability for offences against persons
Conclusions
Thus it can be concluded from the discussion mentioned above that accomplice liability
permits the adjudicating authority to find individuals liable criminally for the conduct which is
committed by other individuals. If the individuals assist, aids or instigate another individual for
committing a criminal act, they are considered as an accomplice. Thus crime against the
individuals refers to the criminal act, which causes direct bodily injury or harm or application of
force to another individual. The offenses against the person consider the severity of damage and
made a distinction between criminal negligence and intentional act. The offences against the
person comprise fatal offences such as murder and manslaughter. The offences are assembled in
the countries of common law under the statute of Offences against the Person Act, 1861.

6Criminal liability for offences against persons
Bibliography
Journals and books
Bankowski, Zenon, D. Neil MacCormick, and Geoffrey Marshall. "Precedent in the United
Kingdom." Interpreting Precedents. Routledge, 2016. 315-354.
Boister, Neil. An introduction to transnational criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B. "Hate Crime." The Wiley Handbook of Violence and Aggression (2017):
1-13.
Gless, Sabine, Emily Silverman, and Thomas Weigend. "If Robots cause harm, Who is to blame?
Self-driving Cars and Criminal Liability." New Criminal Law Review: An International and
Interdisciplinary Journal 19.3 (2016): 412-436.
Legislation
Offenses Against the Person Act, 1861
Robinson, Paul H. "Imputed criminal liability." The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law.
Routledge, 2017. 29-96.
Simbeye, Yitiha. Immunity and international criminal law. Routledge, 2017.
Stevens, Alex, et al. "Legally flawed, scientifically problematic, potentially harmful: The UK
Psychoactive Substance Bill." International Journal of Drug Policy 26.12 (2015): 1167-1170.