Law Acts and Cases
Acts (Criminal Law)
Offences Against the Person Act (1861)
Offences Against the Person Act (1861)
S.18 - Grievous Bodily Harm (Up to life, Indictable)
Actus Reus:
This is defined as wounding or causing serious physical or
mental harm to a person.
Mens Rea:
Intent to cause serious harm.
S.20 - Grievous Bodily Harm (Up to 5 years, either way)
Actus Reus:
Wounding or inflicting serious physical or mental harm to a
person.
Mens Rea:
Intent to cause some harm or recklessness as to causing some
Criminal Justice Act (1988)
harm. S.39 - Battery (Up to 6 months/£5,000 fine, Summary offence)
S.47 - "Assault" causing Actual Bodily Harm (Up to 5 years, either Actus Reus:
way) Application of unlawful force/violence to another person.
Actus Reus: Mens Rea:
Causing some physical or mental harm to a person. Intent or recklessness to apply force.
Mens Rea: S.39 - Assault (Up to 6 months/£5,000 fine, Summary offence)
Intent or recklessness to apply force.
Actus Reus:
Causing someone to apprehend (fear) immediate application of
unlawful force/violence.
Mens Rea:
Intent or recklessness to cause someone to apprehend
immediate unlawful force.
, Acts (Tort Law)
Occupiers Liability Act (1957)
Negligence Definition:
Negligence is a form of Tort law. It establishes a duty of care in The OLA (1957) is a branch of Tort Law, similar to negligence.
cases where a person's recklessness was responsible for harm However, this act imposes a duty of care upon the occupier
caused towards another person. The case of Donoghue v (normally the owner) of a land or property. This establishes a
Stevenson (1932) established the neighbour principle, which reasonable level of protection towards lawful visitors of a
established legal rules relating to standard of acceptable property, whether they be there by invitation (express visitor) or
conduct between individuals. assumed presence (implied visitor).
The case of Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) was useful in Tests Involved For Court Decision:
establishing a three-part test for negligence. To begin with, it
has to be considered whether the defendant could've foreseen Time of the breach (Roe v Minister of Health (1954))
the harm they caused. If the court determines that no Likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone (1951))
reasonable person could've foreseen the harm they caused, the Risk of serious injury (Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951))
defendant will not be liable (Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington (1932)).
After this, the court will need to determine the proximity
between the defendant and the claimant. This requires the
defendant to foresee who would be affected. If the defendant
had no way of determining who would be harmed, they won't be
liable (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)).
Lastly, a decision will be allowed on the grounds of policy. If a
guilty verdict would result in an unfair precedent for future
cases, the court can reject the claimant's claim against the
defendant.
Acts (Criminal Law)
Offences Against the Person Act (1861)
Offences Against the Person Act (1861)
S.18 - Grievous Bodily Harm (Up to life, Indictable)
Actus Reus:
This is defined as wounding or causing serious physical or
mental harm to a person.
Mens Rea:
Intent to cause serious harm.
S.20 - Grievous Bodily Harm (Up to 5 years, either way)
Actus Reus:
Wounding or inflicting serious physical or mental harm to a
person.
Mens Rea:
Intent to cause some harm or recklessness as to causing some
Criminal Justice Act (1988)
harm. S.39 - Battery (Up to 6 months/£5,000 fine, Summary offence)
S.47 - "Assault" causing Actual Bodily Harm (Up to 5 years, either Actus Reus:
way) Application of unlawful force/violence to another person.
Actus Reus: Mens Rea:
Causing some physical or mental harm to a person. Intent or recklessness to apply force.
Mens Rea: S.39 - Assault (Up to 6 months/£5,000 fine, Summary offence)
Intent or recklessness to apply force.
Actus Reus:
Causing someone to apprehend (fear) immediate application of
unlawful force/violence.
Mens Rea:
Intent or recklessness to cause someone to apprehend
immediate unlawful force.
, Acts (Tort Law)
Occupiers Liability Act (1957)
Negligence Definition:
Negligence is a form of Tort law. It establishes a duty of care in The OLA (1957) is a branch of Tort Law, similar to negligence.
cases where a person's recklessness was responsible for harm However, this act imposes a duty of care upon the occupier
caused towards another person. The case of Donoghue v (normally the owner) of a land or property. This establishes a
Stevenson (1932) established the neighbour principle, which reasonable level of protection towards lawful visitors of a
established legal rules relating to standard of acceptable property, whether they be there by invitation (express visitor) or
conduct between individuals. assumed presence (implied visitor).
The case of Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) was useful in Tests Involved For Court Decision:
establishing a three-part test for negligence. To begin with, it
has to be considered whether the defendant could've foreseen Time of the breach (Roe v Minister of Health (1954))
the harm they caused. If the court determines that no Likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone (1951))
reasonable person could've foreseen the harm they caused, the Risk of serious injury (Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951))
defendant will not be liable (Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington (1932)).
After this, the court will need to determine the proximity
between the defendant and the claimant. This requires the
defendant to foresee who would be affected. If the defendant
had no way of determining who would be harmed, they won't be
liable (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)).
Lastly, a decision will be allowed on the grounds of policy. If a
guilty verdict would result in an unfair precedent for future
cases, the court can reject the claimant's claim against the
defendant.
