Jalen believed Katie was having an affair with her husband, Leon. Jalen decided to
send Katie a letter to scare her. The letter told Katie to stay away from Leon and
threatened her with ‘revenge’ if she did not. When Katie opened and read the letter,
she was very frightened.
A few weeks later, Jalen discovered that Leon had been texting Katie. After drinking a
large amount of alcohol, she set out for Katie’s house with an air rifle intending to
injure her. Jalen could see the shape of a woman through a window and in her
intoxicated state believed this to be Katie. She fired the rifle at the shape. However,
Jalen had unknowingly selected the wrong house. Mary, Katie’s neighbour, was hit by
the shot and suffered deep cuts to her hand.
Consider the criminal liability of Jalen in relation to the threat to Katie and the
injuries suffered by Mary.
Precedent will have played a significant role in the development of the rules of
law applied to decide criminal liability in cases such as Jalen’s. Assess the
advantages of the doctrine of judicial precedent [30 marks].
The issues within this scenario are assault, GBH s20, the defence of intoxication and
judicial precedent. Jalen is the defendant while Katie and Mary are the victims. Assault
is defined in s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as an act which causes another
person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force on their person.
Assault requires the defendant to have caused the victim to apprehend (anticipate)
harm to themselves. Katie may have apprehended harm from Jalen as she ‘was very
frightened’ upon reading the ‘threatening letter’. The letter included a threat to Katie,
ordering her to do something which would result in implied physical violence if not
complied with. The statute’s phrasing of ‘immediate’ does not mean instantaneous,
rather imminent (Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station). The courts
may find that the lapse of time between the threat and Jalen acting on the threats (“a
few weeks later”) does not amount to imminent threats of danger as Jalen did not inflict
any harm on Katie within the time period of Katie receiving the threat. Therefore, the
courts must consider whether the time lapse impacts the victim’s ability to succeed in an
assault claim. However, according to R v Ireland, verbal threats or letters can also
amount to an assault, so the courts may consider this judgement alongside the issue of
a time lapse, proposing the possibility of this time lapse being permissible. As for the
mens rea, the defendant must have had either intention or recklessness as to cause the
victim to apprehend harm, as assault is a basic intent crime (Constanza). Jalen may
satisfy the mens rea of intention, as Jalen sent the letter with direct intention to ‘scare’
send Katie a letter to scare her. The letter told Katie to stay away from Leon and
threatened her with ‘revenge’ if she did not. When Katie opened and read the letter,
she was very frightened.
A few weeks later, Jalen discovered that Leon had been texting Katie. After drinking a
large amount of alcohol, she set out for Katie’s house with an air rifle intending to
injure her. Jalen could see the shape of a woman through a window and in her
intoxicated state believed this to be Katie. She fired the rifle at the shape. However,
Jalen had unknowingly selected the wrong house. Mary, Katie’s neighbour, was hit by
the shot and suffered deep cuts to her hand.
Consider the criminal liability of Jalen in relation to the threat to Katie and the
injuries suffered by Mary.
Precedent will have played a significant role in the development of the rules of
law applied to decide criminal liability in cases such as Jalen’s. Assess the
advantages of the doctrine of judicial precedent [30 marks].
The issues within this scenario are assault, GBH s20, the defence of intoxication and
judicial precedent. Jalen is the defendant while Katie and Mary are the victims. Assault
is defined in s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as an act which causes another
person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force on their person.
Assault requires the defendant to have caused the victim to apprehend (anticipate)
harm to themselves. Katie may have apprehended harm from Jalen as she ‘was very
frightened’ upon reading the ‘threatening letter’. The letter included a threat to Katie,
ordering her to do something which would result in implied physical violence if not
complied with. The statute’s phrasing of ‘immediate’ does not mean instantaneous,
rather imminent (Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station). The courts
may find that the lapse of time between the threat and Jalen acting on the threats (“a
few weeks later”) does not amount to imminent threats of danger as Jalen did not inflict
any harm on Katie within the time period of Katie receiving the threat. Therefore, the
courts must consider whether the time lapse impacts the victim’s ability to succeed in an
assault claim. However, according to R v Ireland, verbal threats or letters can also
amount to an assault, so the courts may consider this judgement alongside the issue of
a time lapse, proposing the possibility of this time lapse being permissible. As for the
mens rea, the defendant must have had either intention or recklessness as to cause the
victim to apprehend harm, as assault is a basic intent crime (Constanza). Jalen may
satisfy the mens rea of intention, as Jalen sent the letter with direct intention to ‘scare’
