Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Decision on 'R V Caldwell
Decision on 'R V Caldwell
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Decision on 'R V Caldwell
Decision on 'R V Caldwell
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
R v Loveridge 7th July 2012 Introduction Kieran Loveridge, the offender, pleaded guilty to an indictment containing five counts of offending, all of which occurred on July 7, 2012 in Kings Cross, a suburb of Potts Point. There are three charges of common assault, one charge of assault causing actual bodily harm, and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The offender was in Court on October 25th, 2013 to be sentenced for each of these offences. Offender's charges and sentence For the third count, assaulting Matthew Serrao, the offender was sentenced to four months in prison, beginning on September 18, 2012 and ending on January 17, 2013.
Introduction In the matter of R v Francis , the defendant (Glen Reginald Francis) was being tried for the attempted murder of Timothy Udris. On 8th June 2014, Glenn Francis (‘Francis’) attacked Timothy Udris (‘Udris’), who was hit at least two times with a claw hammer to the skull. The Crown submitted that Francis had attempted to murder Udris, under s306 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
Thus, the defendant did not act toward the plaintiff negligently. Any negligence was to the passenger the contents of whose package were destroyed. So the court decided that, the defendant was not
The case of R. v. Schoenborn is a troubling case involving the death of three children and the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This defence must be critically analyzed along with the evidence and expert opinions as it could absolve the accused of the charges. As well, the precedent that the verdict provides is critical to the legal system and its future implication and thus give the decision more importance. After a thorough examination of the facts, it is evident that the verdict of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is correct and reflects the administration’s objectives and beliefs. This will be demonstrated through the application of legal principles and elements.
In this case, Don Streater and Albert Hunt were driving on the opposite sides. The accident was occurred, but luckily, nobody was killed. However, Streater was heavily injuries. The cost of medical was approximately one hundred thousand dollars. Streater sued Hunt because Hunt was the reason that caused accident.
Section 38 – Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 s.38(1) states that a person commits an offence if (a) they behave in a threatening or abusive manner, the threatening or abusive manner in question within this case is the behaviour displayed by Mr Baig towards the parking attendant, this holds relevance to the actus of reus of Mr Baig as did behave in such a manner as to cause fear to the parking attendants, this fear coincides with another rule stated under Section 38 of the CJLSA 2010 which is (b) the behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, the behaviour ( actus reus) shown by Mr Baig as previously stated was enough to cause fear and extreme discomfort. (c) which is intending by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm relates as the mens rea of Mr Baig within case was his recklessness in not ensuring his behaviour would cause (P) considerable alarm and distress. The main crux under section 38 is that all that was needed to commit the offence was the fear and distress felt by (P), unlike breach of the peace it need not be a public
Mariam. Al-Jerman R V ABRAHAM Summary kiesha Weippeart a 6 year old girl who lived with her mother kristi Abraham and her stepfather robert smith in their western sydney home of Mount Druitt. On the 1st of august 2010 kiesha’s mother kristi Abraham made a phone call to police to report that her daughter kiesha had gone missing. The police then set out a larger scale search to take place in order to look for kristi Abrahams daughter.kristi Abraham and her defacto partner Robert Smith both were reported saying to police constantly that they had no knowledge whatsoever of the involvement in kiesha's disappearance.
Cunningham and Moloney established the MR is an intention to ‘kill or cause grievous bodily harm’ (GBH) or ‘really serious’ harm with malice aforethought or intention. Intention is split into direct and oblique intention. Moloney recognised that in cases of
This scenario is interpreted as reckless endangerment because the man “did not push his companion over in order to kill him” even though the man knew that the friend would probably die, which raises the problem of closeness (Nelkin and Rickless, pg. 747). However, if the man shoots at the friend and misses, he would be charged with attempted murder “yet the ultimate aim is the same in both cases” (Nelkin and Rickless, pg. 747). Nelkin and Rickless’s DDE-R avoids the problem of closeness by introducing the difference between harmful direct agency and harmful indirect agency (Nelkin and Rickless, pg. 757). Distinguishing between harmful direct agency and harmful indirect
A criticism for unlawful act manslaughter is that death could result of being unexpected, if the same act resulted in minor injury then the defendant would be liable for the offence of actual bodily harm, secondly, a defendant who did not realise there was a risk of any injury is still guilty because of the objective nature of the test. Therefore the law relating to involuntary manslaughter is outdated and insufficient and is in need of reform. The law commission had recommended to get rid of unlawful act manslaughter as it was so outdated that it was difficult to convict the defendant on the basis that the defendant was to have realised there was some risk to another resulting in the unlawful act. In the law commission have recommended a structure
In the context of sexual assault, inadvertent recklessness is part of the mens rea, when the prosecution determine the existence of the mens rea, he or she would have to think about advertent recklessness and inadvertent recklessness. If either of the element exist, there is a mens rea and therefore the person is guilty of the offence and can be convicted. However, in the context of indecent assault, it is more difficult to prove advertent recklessness and inadvertent recklessness. Sections 61L and 61N of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) did not mention anything about recklessness.
Subjective recklessness involves the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk. In other words, the accused was aware of the possibility that a certain harm might occur, but proceeded to act nonetheless. Objective recklessness must also involve the taking of an unjustifiable risk, but here it is not necessary for the accused to have considered the possibility that the
In all areas of law reasonableness tends to play a fundamental role including reasonably foreseeability, the reasonable man, beyond reasonable doubt and reasonable force to name a few. The concept of reasonableness in public decision making is no different and has developed, expanded and retracted in various jurisdictions over the past century. In public decision making, reasonableness particularly relates to judicial review, and the actions, events or otherwise which lead a public body to arrive at a particular decision rather the decision itself. It is of great importance that reasonableness is applied to public bodies in order to control the exercise of power and to prevent arbitrary and unfair decisions. In this essay, we will examine
Butterfield was riding at fast at dusk and did not see the shaft. He hit the shaft and endured individual wounds. The court held that Butterfield was contributorily careless on the grounds that on the off chance that he had been utilizing conventional consideration he would have possessed the capacity to see and keep away from the check. Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co.
In Haynes v. Harwood, the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was novus actus interveniens, or remoteness of consequences, i.e., the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the defendant’s servants was the remote cause. It was held that the defendant was liable even though the horses had bolted when a child threw stones on them, because such a mischief on the part of the children was anticipated. “It is not true to say that where the plaintiff has