Module Code Law1003C
Q1- Explain the potential criminal liability of Sam, Tim, Walter, Natalie, Harry and Emma
(including any offences they may have committed and any defences available to them).
Firstly, I will deal with Sam’s possible criminal liability of Coercive Control (S.76 of the
serious crime act 2015), Theft, two counts of S39 assault and a S47 or S20 offence.
Sam consistently makes Emma feel very low about herself, he critiques appearance and how
she is as a mother. This could be a crime of coercive control under S.76 of the Serious Crime
Act 2015. This offence can be proven if the defendant, repeatedly or continuously engages
in behaviour towards another person, that is controlling or coercive; and at time of the
behaviour, Defendant and Victim are personally connected; and the behaviour has a serious
effect on V; and D knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on
V. This is shown in the case of Sally Challen where she had murdered her husband due to
the coercive control she had experienced over a number of years and completely altered
her state of life. Sam and Emma are in an intimate relationship and his behaviour amounts
to coercive control due to her depression being as a result of him isolating her and
controlling her life. Sam would be given a sentence of 5 years.
After Tim’s parents evening, Sam forces Emma into giving him her card and when she gets
upset and refuses, he states “I’ll give you something to cry about”. This could be a S39
assault. The Actus Reus of this offence is that it can be satisfied by D caused another person
to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence by words, written or spoken. There
must be apprehension as to the violence or it cannot be sufficed (Lamb 1967). The words
must cause the victim to fear immediate unlawful force of violence. Using Smith (1983), the
victim might not know what D is going to do next. The Mens Rea of this offence is that D
must have intention of recklessness as to causing another to fear immediate unlawful force.
Sam threatened Emma and gave her reason to fear immediate violence if she did not give
him the card. Furthermore, Sam satisfies the MR as he directly intended the fear of
violence. Using Moloney and the test for purpose, Sam’s purpose was to inflict such fear as
that Emma would hand over her card to him. This would cause Sam to be convicted of at
least 6 months.
Sam then comes home drunk and throws the bank card at Emma’s face telling her it is
useless. The throw causes a cut on the side of her face. This could be S47 OAPA 1861.
Assault occasioning GBH, the AR is assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm “any
hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the heath or comfort of V” (Miller 1954).
Parmenter (1992) indicates that there is no need to show D foresaw the actual bodily harm.
It was held in this case that you only need to prove foresight of some harm not foresight of
level of harm which resulted. It is clear that by throwing a plastic card at her face with such
force that Sam caused her injuries and satisfies this test. The possible defence of voluntary
intoxication is that the alcohol consumption was so great that it affected the way in which D
could form their MR. However, as this is a crime of basic intent and this defence only applies
to crimes of specific intent, it does not apply here. Therefore, Sam would be given a
sentence of 5 years.
The fight accelerated and Sam threatened Emma with a knife. This could be another S39
where the AR is that D caused another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful
Q1- Explain the potential criminal liability of Sam, Tim, Walter, Natalie, Harry and Emma
(including any offences they may have committed and any defences available to them).
Firstly, I will deal with Sam’s possible criminal liability of Coercive Control (S.76 of the
serious crime act 2015), Theft, two counts of S39 assault and a S47 or S20 offence.
Sam consistently makes Emma feel very low about herself, he critiques appearance and how
she is as a mother. This could be a crime of coercive control under S.76 of the Serious Crime
Act 2015. This offence can be proven if the defendant, repeatedly or continuously engages
in behaviour towards another person, that is controlling or coercive; and at time of the
behaviour, Defendant and Victim are personally connected; and the behaviour has a serious
effect on V; and D knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on
V. This is shown in the case of Sally Challen where she had murdered her husband due to
the coercive control she had experienced over a number of years and completely altered
her state of life. Sam and Emma are in an intimate relationship and his behaviour amounts
to coercive control due to her depression being as a result of him isolating her and
controlling her life. Sam would be given a sentence of 5 years.
After Tim’s parents evening, Sam forces Emma into giving him her card and when she gets
upset and refuses, he states “I’ll give you something to cry about”. This could be a S39
assault. The Actus Reus of this offence is that it can be satisfied by D caused another person
to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence by words, written or spoken. There
must be apprehension as to the violence or it cannot be sufficed (Lamb 1967). The words
must cause the victim to fear immediate unlawful force of violence. Using Smith (1983), the
victim might not know what D is going to do next. The Mens Rea of this offence is that D
must have intention of recklessness as to causing another to fear immediate unlawful force.
Sam threatened Emma and gave her reason to fear immediate violence if she did not give
him the card. Furthermore, Sam satisfies the MR as he directly intended the fear of
violence. Using Moloney and the test for purpose, Sam’s purpose was to inflict such fear as
that Emma would hand over her card to him. This would cause Sam to be convicted of at
least 6 months.
Sam then comes home drunk and throws the bank card at Emma’s face telling her it is
useless. The throw causes a cut on the side of her face. This could be S47 OAPA 1861.
Assault occasioning GBH, the AR is assault or battery which causes actual bodily harm “any
hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the heath or comfort of V” (Miller 1954).
Parmenter (1992) indicates that there is no need to show D foresaw the actual bodily harm.
It was held in this case that you only need to prove foresight of some harm not foresight of
level of harm which resulted. It is clear that by throwing a plastic card at her face with such
force that Sam caused her injuries and satisfies this test. The possible defence of voluntary
intoxication is that the alcohol consumption was so great that it affected the way in which D
could form their MR. However, as this is a crime of basic intent and this defence only applies
to crimes of specific intent, it does not apply here. Therefore, Sam would be given a
sentence of 5 years.
The fight accelerated and Sam threatened Emma with a knife. This could be another S39
where the AR is that D caused another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful
