Avril's Assault Case: Criminal Law Analysis and Legal Principles

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a criminal law case involving Avril, who was charged with assault for punching her husband, David. The case revolves around issues of self-defense, as Avril claimed she acted to protect herself after David attempted to push her onto the road. The report identifies key issues, including whether the punch constituted assault, if self-defense is applicable, the burden of proof, and the admissibility of evidence from a minor witness. It examines relevant legal principles, including assault definitions, self-defense under the Criminal Law Act 1967, and burden of proof in criminal cases. The analysis incorporates case law, such as Fagan v MPC and R v Gladstone Williams, to support legal arguments. The report critiques the judge's handling of evidence and the allocation of the burden of proof, concluding that Avril's conviction may not align with legal principles and suggests grounds for appeal. The report highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors, including witness testimony and proper application of legal standards, before reaching a verdict. The report also includes a detailed reference list of books, journals, and online resources.

Criminal law

Table of Contents
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
FACT RELATED WITH CASE:................................................................................................3
ISSUES TO BE IDENTIFIED....................................................................................................3
RULES RELEVANT OT CASE................................................................................................3
APPLICATION OF RULES IN CASE LAW...........................................................................5
DRAWING A CONCLUSION...................................................................................................6

MAIN BODY
FACT RELATED WITH CASE:
The present case is related with criminal charges on Avril for assault. For punching her
husband David at public place (Bus stop). It was claimed that she hit her husband in self
protection as he was trying to push her on the road. A 12 years old boy Liam was present at bus
stop and had seen all of these happening. In the police station Avril remained silent as advised
by her solicitors but when told b the police officer that more she remains silent longer she will be
in custody, upon this she gave up her right to salience and told that OK I hit David and again
went silent. While summing her up, it was told by the Judges to jury that, the burden to prove is
on defense that she hit her out of self protection, evidences form a young boy can not be taken
and that she gave up her right of silence in froth of police officer.
ISSUES TO BE IDENTIFIED
 Is punching an assault?
 Is self defiance chargeable in criminal law?
 Who is liable under burden of proof?
 Whether evidences from Liam can be taken?
 Whether conviction of Avril is right?
RULES RELEVANT OT CASE
Assault:
Under criminal it is defined that an assault is committed when a personal intentionally
or recklessly impose physical harm or unwanted physical contact to another person this is
considered as means rea. For charging a person for assault four main features defines as actus rea
of assault must be fulfilled, they are: the Vitim must be apprehended, means the victim might
not be put in fear but he/she was aware that they are about to be subjected to violence (Common
assault and battery to be summary offences, 2018). The act must be unlawful, means the victim
has a lawful reason for using force. It is immediate means a threat to hit is not assault, it must be
on the spot. The last feature is personal violence mean victim means there must be as physical
touch.
Case law: Fagan v MPC [1969] 1Q.B. 439

In this case a person while driving his car ran over the foot of police and he was
convicted for criminal charges. The case was dismissed on the base that all the actus rea were
present but he had no such intention of hurting the offices hence mans rea was not present. The
person was freed from all the charges.
Self defense and personal protection:
Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, defines self defenses as an act by a person
used under reasonable circumstances in prevention of a crime(SELF DEFENCE LAW, 2018).
This is a right empowered to all the citizen of UK for prevention of crime. This is further defined
in the act that if a person provoke an attack or used forces on other and rely on the claim of self
defenses, same is dismissed in the court.
Case law:
R v Gladstone Williams (1984) 78 Cr. App. R. 276
In this case a person witness another man attacking a youth person. In fact the person
attacking individual was preventing that child from running who was making a mugging attempt.
He appealed contending that the trial judge gave a misdirection to the jury in requiring the
mistake to be a reasonably held mistake. For this the appeal was allowed and the attacker was
dismissed. In this case the judge stated that, In a case of self-defence, where self-defence or the
prevention of crime is concerned, if the jury came to the conclusion that the defendant believed,
or may have believed, that he was being attacked or that a crime was being committed, and that
force was necessary to protect himself or to prevent the crime, then the prosecution have not
proved their case.
Burden of proof:
As per the provision of the criminal law, a party seeking to prove a fact in the court
must satisfy the fact to be legally established (Being charged with a crime, 2018). In criminal
cases, the burden of proof is on prosecution proving the guilt of defendant. Standard of proof is
far higher so the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty
means the magistrates or jury have to be satisfied that they are sure about the defendant’s guilt.
Witnesses under 18 years:
AS per the provisions of ECHR, Children and young people are required to go to court
as witnesses either as victim or a witness to crime. The cases involving young people as witness
are heard in District and Circuit court. Before presenting a child or young individual before the

court it must be presented to Gardai who determines the status of the child. The Child is
determined either as victim or witness, young or child (Boister, 2018). A child of age of 14 or
above are required to give evidences under the oath but below that age, children are not required
to take to oath fro present their evidences.
APPLICATION OF RULES IN CASE LAW
For the present case cash of the issues present above are determined separately and
lastly a conclusion is drawn on the conviction Avril. The first issues is that, whether punch is
counted as assault, though the punch to David by Avril do fulfilled all the elements of Actus
rea but her act do no had means reas. That is she did not punch David intentionally, rather it was
an act of self defense. As per the decides case law of Fagan v MPC [1969] 1Q.B. 439, it can
be stated that Punch in this case can not be determined as an act of assault.
The second issues is whether an act of self defense is chargeable under UK criminal law,
no it is not, until and unless it is done to protect a crime or prevention of self from a criminal act.
In accordance with the section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, Avril did punch David under t
reasonable circumstances as the action of David who tried to push her on road. Also, this can
also be stated with the decides case law of R v Gladstone Williams, in which the William
attacked the child from preventing him from running after mugging. In this case judge stated the
prosecution did not prove its point that William did not attack the child for prevention of crimes
under act as self defense.
The third issues is related with the liability to prove the criminal act done by the
offender (Hart, 2017). Under the UK criminal law the persecution have the liability to proves the
action of accused as criminal offense. In summing up the case, judge stated to the jury that
burden of proof is on defenses which is not right as per the provision of the criminal act, 1967.
The fourth issue that needs to be analyzed to establish correctness of conviction of
Avril under assault charges of criminal law is related with taking evidences from a minor
witness who was present at the scenes when all this happened between Avril and David. As per
the provision of the law a minor can be brought to court as witness to present the evidences,
Liam being less than the age of 14 will not be giving his evidence under oath. While summing
up the jury, Judges stated that Liam's evidences can not be taken as witness as he is a minor. This
infact a big mistake on the part of the judges as not take into consideration a witness before
passing a judgment.

For all the above issues it has been determined that judges before convicted Avril
missed out two major points that must be considered before giving a judgment. One is charging
the dense for burden of proof to prove that innocent rather it is the duty of prosecution to prove
that the other party is guilty. In the same case, they ruled out the probability of taking evidences
from a minor child which is legitimate under the UK criminal law.
DRAWING A CONCLUSION
For the given case of Avril and David, it can clearly be stated that conviction of Avril on
the charges of Assault for punching her husband. The ability was drawn on the defenses and also
witness evidences were not taken before passing the decision of convicting her. More over in
this case, facts were not clearly present as to whether the act of Avril was really under self
defense or not. The evidences form Liam would have made the scenario more clear and precise.
The act of Avril, under the given circumstance was self defense from protecting her husband 's
commitment of crime to hurt her by pushing her on the road. This can be stated that the
Conviction of Avril was not in accordance with the legal rules and provision prescribed under
the UK criminal law. She has a right to appeal against the order on the base that decision on the
case missed out many important factors such as putting burden of prove liability of defense and
not taking evidences form witness.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Hart, H. L .A., 2017. Crime and Criminal Law: A Review. In The Structure and Limits of
Criminal Law. (pp. 411-418). Routledge.
Boister, N., 2018. An introduction to transnational criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Online
Common assault and battery to be summary offences. 2018. [Online]. Available
through :<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/39>.
Being charged with a crime. 2018. [Online]. Available through :<https://www.gov.uk/charged-
crime>.
SELF DEFENCE LAW. 2018. [Online]. Available through :<https://www.arkravmaga.co.uk/?
p=uk.self.defence.law>.