LAW 5023 Criminal Law Assignment: Offences Against Person & Property

This assignment is a comprehensive analysis of criminal law, divided into two parts: Part A addresses offences against the person, and Part B focuses on offences against property. Part A examines issues such as negligence resulting in electrocution and assault, applying legal principles related to occupier's liability and the duty of care. It explores cases like Edwards v London Borough of Sutton, Wheat v E Lacon and Company Limited, and Roles v Nathan to determine liabilities. The assignment also considers scenarios involving nervous shock, consent (volenti non fit injuria), and offences like manslaughter. Part B addresses theft and obtaining money by false pretense, analyzing the legal consequences of Fred's actions. The assignment applies relevant sections of the Singapore Penal Code and discusses potential defenses, such as necessity. The analysis covers various legal concepts, including occupier's liability, the duty of care, and criminal offences, providing a detailed examination of the presented cases and scenarios.

1
Offences against people and property

2
Table of Contents
Part A.........................................................................................................................................3
Issue........................................................................................................................................3
Rule........................................................................................................................................3
Application.............................................................................................................................3
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................6
Part B..........................................................................................................................................6
Issue........................................................................................................................................6
Rule........................................................................................................................................6
Application.............................................................................................................................6
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................9
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................11

3
Part A
Issue
Whether Anthony and heather are liable for negligence as a result of the electric shock cased
to Taylor due to the faulty plug socket? What are the liabilities pertaining to assaults as
implied by the facts of the case.
Rule
The rules relating to the liability of the occupier would be applicable accordingly as far as the
aspect pertaining to landlord and tenant are concerned. The criminal offences pertaining to
assault thereby resulting in grievous injuries and death would also be taken into account
thereby applying the relevant rules accordingly in this regard. It may also include murder and
manslaughter accordingly.
Application
In the instance pertaining to the death of Taylor as a result of electrocution, the aspect
pertaining to the liability of the landlord with regard to the death or injury to the tenant would
be taken into account. Since Anthony and Heather both knew about the faults and defects in
the plug socket, they owed a duty of care to Taylor with regard to the repairing of the plug
socket accordingly and ensure that the repair works pertaining to the plug socket are to be
carried out in an effective and efficient manner. Even the electrician Danny also did not
furnish any report regarding the repairing of the plug socket after ensuring to attend on
receipt of email by Heather since it is implied form the facts of the case that Danny forgot
about the repairing of the plug socket after colliding with Landon. Furthermore, neither
Heather nor Anthony bothered to remind Danny about the repairing of the plug socket. As a
result, it is imperative that the owners of the hotel Anthony and Heather failed to take due
diligence of the matter pertaining to the repair of the plug socket in the desired manner as far
as the health and safety of Taylor is concerned. The aspect pertaining to occupier’s liability
would be applicable to Anthony and Heather accordingly as far as the offences against a
person are concerned. The rules related to the negligence of landlord would be analysed. In
such aspects, it is the duty of the landlord to take care of the concerned premises in such a
manner so that the tenant or the occupant does not encounter major issues pertaining to the
security and safety of the premises and the surroundings as the case may be.

4
In the case of Edwards v London Borough of Sutton, the plaintiff Edwards fell from a
footbridge onto the rocks beneath the water. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries due to
the faulty aspect of the bridge1. The bridge was designed in such a manner that it could pose
difficulties for any passerby in question. In this case, it was held by the Civil Division of the
Court of Appeal of England and Wales that London Borough of Sutton failed to take
reasonable care with regard to the maintenance of the bridge and should be held liable as far
as the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957 is concerned2.
In the case of Wheat v E Lacon and Company Limited, the defendants occupied a private are
of the premises of the brewery they managed. The plaintiff who was a paying guest stayed in
the private area. Due to the lack of handrail, the plaintiff fell off from the stairs and died
subsequently. Additionally, the light bulb had also been removed at that very moment. In this
case, it was held by the House of Lords that the defendants were not liable under the
definition of an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability Act of 1957 since the handrail is not
considered to be dangerous and the light bulb was removed by a stranger3. Lord Denning in
this case defined the term occupier in a proper and appropriate manner as far as the merits of
the case are concerned. In this case, the occupiers included the managers of the brewery and
the brewery as a whole each having duties towards the visitor concerned which varied
amongst them accordingly. Additionally, the plaintiff must have informed any of the
occupiers beforehand so that the handrail could be installed accordingly along with the fixing
of the light bulb.
In the case of Roles v Nathan, the chimney sweeps died as a result of fire which led to the
spreading of carbon monoxide to a huge extent. They had already been instructed beforehand
not to stay for too long and avoid work on the occasion pertaining to the outbreak of fire.
Such instructions were issued in the account of the health and safety of the chimney sweeps.
In this case, it was held by the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales
that the occupier discharged its duty accordingly and therefore, is not liable under the
Occupiers’ Liability Act of 19574.
1 Edwards v London Borough of Sutton [2016] EWCA Civ 1005
2 Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
3 Wheat v E Lacon and Company Limited [1966] 1 All ER 582
4 Roles v Nathan [1963] 2 All E.R. 908

5
In the case of Ward v Tesco Stores Limited, the plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of
slipping through pink yoghurt which was already spilled on the floor5. The trial judge in this
case delivered a judgement in favour of the plaintiff. As a result, an appeal was filed by
Tesco Stores Limited at the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales
which was eventually dismissed the appeal taking account of the Occupiers’ Liability Act of
1957. In this case the doctrine pertaining to res ipsa loquitor was laid down accordingly
which implies negligence pertaining to the aspect of the accident or injury in the non-
prevalence of the evidence in a direct form as far as the actions or omissions of the defendant
is concerned accordingly. The case also implied and laid down the precedent pertaining to
trip and slip thereby leading to injuries or in some unfortunate instances, death. It was the
duty of Tesco Stores Limited to clean up at the earliest after such kind of a spillage. As a
result, the concept of res ipsa loquitor is discussed and demonstrated accordingly.
Even though Larry did not sustain any kind of injury as a result of falling on to the ground
due the prank played by Frances with regard to the pulling of the chair, the aspect pertaining
to nervous shock would be applicable with regard to the defence of Larry as far as the
claiming for damages in a proper and appropriate manner is concerned in the form of
compensation. As per the principles implied by the common law of England and Wales, the
concept of nervous shock implies injury or illness pertaining to mental health by being a
witness to dangerous incidents accordingly.
In the case of White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, the police officers who
made there presence as a result of the Hillsborough disaster filed a suit on grounds of post
traumatic stress disorder as far as the aspect pertaining to nervous shock is concerned. In this
case, it was held by the House of Lords that there was no instance of nervous shock on part of
the plaintiffs as they were not personally exposed to the aspects pertaining to the danger with
regard to the events of the Hillsborough disaster. As a result, the House of Lords vehemently
rejected the claim made by the plaintiffs6.
If a suit is filed against Brooke by Amanda and her boyfriend Chad, the defence pertaining to
volentini non fit injuria would be applicable accordingly since in any physical sporting
events, any kind of accident which eventually cases injuries is inevitable. As a result, Brooke
would not be liable for any suit filed by Amanda and her boyfriend Chad rather she can claim
5 Ward v Tesco Stores Limited [1976] 1 WLR 810
6 White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455

6
defence for assault and initiate proceedings against Chad if he actually commits any act as
asserted by him with regard to the facts of the case which implies stitches for Brooke.
Additionally, Brooke would also not be held liable since she was unaware of the fact that she
was having sexual intercourse with Lou, the identical twin brother of her boyfriend Vernon.
Additionally, Lou did not present his correct identification to Brooke when he agreed for the
acts related to sexual intercourse with Brooke. As a result, if any legal issues are raised, Lou
would be held liable for the aspects pertaining to the concealment of fact thereby leading to
the deception of Brooke accordingly. Furthermore, the aspects pertaining to impersonation
may also be applicable as far as the liabilities of Lou are concerned.
Reg is liable for the injuries caused to Ben and Holly accordingly since he had no business
into the matter pertaining to the kiss between Holly and Ben accordingly. Such an aspect on
part of Reg would imply the intrusion in to the aspects pertaining to the private matters of
Ben and Holly accordingly. As a result Reg has committed an offence pertaining ot
manslaughter accordingly. He also cannot claim any kind of defence in account of having
consumed half a bottle of whiskey as far as criminal act committed under the influence of
alcohol is concerned.
In the case of R v O’Hare, the aspect pertaining to defence in relation to commission of a
criminal act in the state of drunkenness was raised accordingly by the appellant as far as
stabbing a person which eventfully resulted in the death of the person is concerned. In this
case, it was held by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that
the defence related to drunkenness is not applicable when the person committing the offence
has a reasonable intention to do so. It can be claimed only when there is no reasonable
intention on part of the person7.
Ben would be liable for the act pertaining to the severing of the brakes of the car owned by
Reg since any act which has been committed as a result of revenge can never be claimed for
defence. Additionally, Ben had no authority to punish Reg for the act committed by him
pertaining to stabbing. Furthermore, if any other person drove the car instead of Reg, the
aspect pertaining to brakes failure could have resulted in the death of the concerned person
instead of Reg. However, the factor pertaining to provocation may also be taken into account
with regard to defence for Ben.
7 R v O’Hare [1999] EWCA Crim 771

7
Kate would be held liable for the assault committed with regard to the casing of injuries to
Emerald accordingly. Such an assault on part of Kate implies that criminal liabilities must be
imposed on her. She would also be liable for manslaughter since such an act pertaining to
assault has led Emerald into an unconscious state. If it results in death of Emerald, she would
be held liable for murder accordingly and the sentencing for a specified term should be
decided by the court of competent jurisdiction accordingly.
Since Ben was trying to take care of Emerald by driving her to hospital, he would not be held
liable accordingly. It is to be seen whether Ben losing his way resulted in the death of
Emerald since doctors stated that the aspect pertaining to haemophilia resulted in the
deterioration of the Emerald’s condition thereby leading to her death. As a result, it is
imperative that no charges should be imposed on Ben since he tried his best to undertake
reasonable care as far as the driving of Emerald to hospital as a result of unconsciousness due
to the assault is concerned as implied from the facts of the case accordingly.
Conclusion
As implied form the facts and circumstances pertaining to the chain of events with reference
to the case, the issues must be addressed in a proper and appropriate manner thereby applying
the relevant provisions along with the relevant common law principles. The aspects related to
the precedents set by courts should also be taken into account as far as conclusiveness
pertaining to the making of decisions by courts is concerned accordingly. The decision must
be made in the interest of equity and justice as deemed to be fit and appropriate by the court.
Part B
Issue
Whether Fred is liable for the stealing of Ipod? Whether Trixie would b liable in helping
Barbara in the acts pertaining to setting of fire? What are the liabilities for Pasty and Delia?
Rule
The laws pertaining to the offences against the property would be applicable with regard to
the damage to property and the defences accordingly by the application of the relevant laws
and legal principles.

8
Application
Fred is liable for stealing of the Ipod along with the assault cased to the man with the Ipod.
Additionally, Fred should have managed the finances accordingly as far as the paying of the
rent is concerned in which Tom and Fred reside together as tenants and contribute fifty
pounds each with regard to the electricity bill amounting to hundred pounds in a month. No
liability should be imposed on Tom in this regard since he gave fifty pounds to Fred in good
faith as far as the payment of the electricity bill is concerned accordingly. In such aspect,
Fred may be held liable for breach of promise towards accordingly as far as the merits of the
case are concerned. As a result, the aspect pertaining to breach of promise may be applied
accordingly thereby leading to the awarding of damages to Tom in the form of compensation
as decided by the court if it is observed that Tom was unaware of the fact that the money
which was supposed to be paid in terms of the electricity bill was actually spent by Fred in
buying a birthday gift for his girlfriend Violet. As a result, Tom should not be evicted on
grounds of non payment of electricity bill provided that he comprehensively proves that the
amount of fifty pounds given to Fred solely for the payment of the electricity bill accordingly.
Additionally, Fred must be held liable for mugging since he knocked down the man by
punching him with the purpose of grabbing his Ipod accordingly. As a result, he should be
arrested by the police for a certain term which is to be decided by the respective court of
competent jurisdiction. Such an act is extremely dangerous in nature as far as the safety and
security of the public in general is concerned. Compensation should be awarded to the
assaulted person in a proper and appropriate manner so as to ensure public health and safety
in the desired manner.
Trixie would not be liable since she was induced and forced by Barbara to commit the acts
pertaining to the setting up of the house of Joe on fire. Since it is implied that Trixie has left
those kinds of jobs which she used to do previously as instructed by Barbara as undertaking
of the tasks of the drug dealer Saint is concerned, the aspect pertaining to limitation is
applicable as far as the stipulated time frame is concerned with regard to the initiation of
proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction are concerned. However, Barbara in this
matter would be held liable not only for attempted to murder of her ex-boyfriend Joe but also
inducing Trixie into such kinds of acts failing which her previous acts pertaining to drug
dealing would be reported to the hospital authorities where she works as a nurse. Such an act
on part of Barbara also implies the aspect pertaining to the incitement of Trixie to commit

9
such kinds of acts as she was threatened for refusing or failing to do so. As a result, Part 2 of
the Serious Crime Act of 2007 would be applicable accordingly as far as encouragement of a
person for the committing of a crime is concerned. Even though no har or injury has been
casued to Joe, he can claim for nervous shock if he has directly witnessed that his house has
been st on fire. In this regard, both Barbara and Trixie would be liable accordingly as far as
the merits of the case are concerned8. If it is inferred that Trixie voluntarily heeded to the
instructions of Barbara without any kind of objections, both Barbara and Trixie would be
liable for acts pertaining to criminal conspiracy as far as the concept of common intention is
concerned.
In the case of R v Whitehouse, the father influenced his fifteen year old daughter to undergo
sexual intercourse with him9. In this case, it was held by the Criminal Division of the Court of
Appeal of England and Wales that the father is to be held liable for incitement since the
daughter was induced accordingly and be exempt of liability on grounds of being under the
age of fifteen. As a result, the father was charged or committing a heinous crime accordingly
whereas the girl was acquitted since she was a minor.
Such an aspect was repeated by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of England and
Wales in the case of R v Claydon. In this case, it was held by the Criminal Division of the
Court of Appeal of England and Wales that the offender Claydon is liable for sexual assult as
he incited the thirteen year old son of is partner for having sexual intercourse accordingly. It
was asserted that the boy being a minor must be exempt from criminal liabilities accordingly
since he was incited for the same accordingly10.
In the case of Race Relations Board v Applin, the defendants were the members of the outfit
National Front who threatened a white couple to stop fostering those children who were white
thereby possibly inciting and triggering racism and hatred accordingly which may lead to
discrimination11. In this case, it was held by the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal of
England and Wales that the defendants had incited hatred towards the back community
thereby acting in contravention of Section 12 of the Race Relations Act of 196812. The
8 Serious Crime Act 2007
9 R v Whitehouse (1995) 1 Cr App R 420
10 R v Claydon (2005) EWCA Crim 2817
11 Race Relations Board v Applin [1973] 1 QB 815
12 Race Relations Act 1968

10
offences pertaining to the incitement of a crime was also taken into account in this regard
accordingly.
Delia would be held liable for the acts pertaining to stealing and theft as far as the grabbing of
Pasty’s Radio is concerned. The aspect pertaining to robbery or burglary may also be
applicable since it is observed form the facts of the case that there has been house breaking
on part of Delia by as far as the breaking of the kitchen window is concerned. Additionally,
pasty should be held liable since she defaced the wall of the hall way as far as spray painting
without permission or approval is concerned. It is imperative that both are to be held liable
for causing damages on each other’s property. Furthermore, it is imperative form the facts of
the case that pasty is simply suspecting Delia as far as the loss of her designer watch is
concerned. It can also be reasonably presumed that Delia committed such acts in revenge as
far as break opening of Pasty’s house is concerned with an intention to grab the radio as far as
the concept of mens rea is concerned which implies guilty mind. It is prima facie established
that Delia has committed an act of trespass since she broke the glass of the kitchen window.
Since the act committed by Tom was during the time when he was asleep, the defence
pertaining to sleepwalking is to be claimed accordingly by Tom since there have been various
instances in which people committing murder while asleep have been acquitted. The medical
aspect pertaining to sleepwalking is the key thing in order to identify and determine the
merits of the case as far as the arriving at a conclusion is concerned. As a result, Tom should
not be held liable for the act pertaining to the drawing of shapes on the carpet in a state of
sleepwalking.
In the case of R v Parks, a man known as Kenneth James Parks murdered his mother in law
and attempted to murder his father in law while asleep. The father in law eventually survived.
Subsequently, he went to the nearby police station with his hand covered in blood to confess
his murder. In this case, it was held by the Supreme Court of Canada that Kenneth James
Parks must be acquitted since his reports pertaining to electroencephalography imply that the
offence were committed at the stage when he was asleep13.
As a result, it is imperative that the acts committed by Tom in the state of sleepwalking are
inevitable since a person while committing any kind of act with regard to sleepwalking is not
aware that such an act is being committed by him or her. As a result, he should not be held
13 R v Parks [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871

11
liable for the damages pertaining to the amount of three hundred pound. Rather his boss is
under an obligation to take reasonable care as far as his condition related to sleepwalking is
concerned with regard to the relationship between employee and employer.
In this regard, if it is observed form the facts of the case that Tom is an employee of Cynthia
a t a regular level, she would be vicariously liable for the act committed by Tom since she
failed to restrain Tom to commit such kind of act by not taking reasonable care being her
employer. The common law doctrine pertaining to vicarious liability of the employer is
applicable as a result. The key aspect in this regard is the proper and appropriate relationship
between Cynthia and Tom in terms of employment as far as the appropriate application of the
concept of vicarious liability is concerned.
If it is inferred form the facts of the case that Tom had asked for golf balls, then Trixie would
not be held liable for theft subject to the fact that those golf balls do not belong to any of the
golfers who frequently utilize the golf course for the purpose of playing and practicing
accordingly. Moreover, no liability would be imposed on Trixie if the golf balls belong to the
golf course since Trixie is the owner of the golf course. Furthermore, she has no malalfide
intentions since she gave the lost golf balls to Tom as a result of being aware of the fact that
Tom is passionate for golf.
Additionally, the facts of the case also imply that Trixie would not be held liable for
damaging the antique painting as a result of water since the water was being used to prevent
the spreading of fire which was cased as a result of leaving the dryer unattended by Pasty. As
a result, the damage has been cased for the purpose of prevention of greater damage as the
fire might have spread in such a manner which would lead to the burning of the painting into
ashes. It is imperative that no liabilities are to be imposed upon Trixie accordingly.
Conclusion
It is inferred form the facts along with the issues that the relevant provisions and precedents
as aforesaid should be applied in a proper and appropriate manner so as to derive a
comprehensive solution in the interest of natural justice thereby leading to the notification of
both the sides pertaining to the presentation of their averments accordingly for the purpose of
capitulating upon their claim in the desired manner and the court of competent jurisdiction or
the concerned judicial body or forum providing reasonable opportunity to both the parties to
be heard. The judgment should be made in the interest of equity and justice as deemed ot be

12
fit and proper by the court of competent jurisdiction or the concerned judicial body or forum.
The procedures pertaining to appeal must be taken into account if the aggrieved party not
satisfied with the original judgement prays that the error of law has been made by the lower
court or authority concerned with regard to the concluding upon the judgement.

13
Bibliography
Edwards v London Borough of Sutton [2016] EWCA Civ 1005
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
R v Claydon (2005) EWCA Crim 2817
R v O’Hare [1999] EWCA Crim 771
R v Parks [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871
R v Whitehouse (1995) 1 Cr App R 420
Race Relations Act 1968
Race Relations Board v Applin [1973] 1 QB 815
Roles v Nathan [1963] 2 All E.R. 908
Serious Crime Act 2007
Ward v Tesco Stores Limited [1976] 1 WLR 810
Wheat v E Lacon and Company Limited [1966] 1 All ER 582
White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455