Criminal Law

In other words, legislation exhibits some rules and regulations which are necessary to be followed for the good of all citizens within the territory of country . Further, breach of duty arises liability towards him. But, it must be noted that criminal law clearly states that only intentionally performed acts are punishable under this act.

The doctrine of actus reus states that court checks the mind set of person when laws provision has been breached.. Further, actus reus covers all elements of crime like conduct, result and a state of affair or omission. On the other hand, court treated as ab-initio crime such as perjury, theft, making off without payment and possession of drug etc. For example, when someone beat to another with kidding intention than this act not cover in crime activities. because there is party intention is not harm to anyone. . On the contrary, if person beats another individual with an intention to harm him then this activity is covered under criminal legislation provision.

The legislation of crime is cover such act which actually harm to another person. Further, wrong intention by through are not cover in this provision. . For example: the case of Duck v Peacock state that drinking alcohol in small quantity is not crime. . on other hand, another cite of R v Larsonneur (1933) Supported above statement.

Defence of insanity

Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 of under section 2 states that doctrine of defence of insanity is a general cover to all law for purpose of protection of criminal person. . When an offender is of insane mind, the court gives him special remedy or different trial which protects him from criminal provision. Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 under section 5 states special treatment to insanity person further . Court does not give punishment by applied criminal legislation. Insanity covers three points, that is, insanity before trial, unfitness to plead and insanity at the time of offence.

• Insanity before trial – When defendant is in custody then home secretary has the power to send him immediately to hospital for the check-up of his mental condition. Further, in this case, confirmation from two doctors is mandatory.
• Unfitted to plead - Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 of section 5 states that the question of unfit is raised by jury to give special treatment to the offender.
• Insanity at the time of the offence – It is determined by the rules of M'Naghten rules.

Omission – Sometimes, omission can be cover in actus reus of a crime. Further, general rules state that no liability arise for the failure of activities in intentionally manner by any person.. For example: It Jones would see a man who is seriously injured but he does not help him then it is not covered under criminal nature activities. It has some expectations which are as follows:

• Statuary duty – the statuary duty is mandatory to be followed by all citizens. Further, if any person breaches the lawful duty then legislation can punish to such person. On the other hand, any individual cannot save himself from behaviours which arisen by intentional manner.. For example: If any person breaches the traffic rules then this act is punishable even if he does not have any idea about the same as these rules are imposed by the government of nation.
• Contractual duty – If a person is bound by contractual duty then it is the obligation of both parties to comply the provision as stated in contractual agreement. Further, breach may arise liability towards him. Apart from this act, the contract act states that if a person conducts a mistake by own countries law than he will be punishable with same manner whether he knows or not about legislation provision., On other side, party may provided exemption if he liable by breach of foreign legislation. Case of R v Pittwood [1902] supported the above statement.
• Duty imposed by law – In case if legislation imposes some duties which must be complied by all parties in a fair manner . Further, it is mandatory for all citizens to follow as per the states provisions. Omission is classified as the part of continuing act.

General rules state that court gives their decision on the basis of strong evidence. Thus, in case of drunk person, court checks medical report as an evidence. Further, court analysis guiltiness by review of medical report.

Fact

In March 1961, twenty year old George Bratty had given a lift to Josephine Fitzsimmons in car. Further, such lady later found dead at near Hillsborough, County Down, Northern Ireland, . Therefore, police conducted an interview and asked for scratches on his neck. So that , he gives their a statement before police: that action of his is arise by terrible through and he don't know actually what he do at last night because he has not controlled over own mind.

Trial

Solicitor shows some fact before court for the purpose of saving Bratty. These facts are explained as under:

• Bratty was not guilty as he did not do anything intentionally. Further, he was not having control on himself. Thus, jury rejected this defence.
• Then advocate showed another defence that mental condition of Bratty was not well at the time offence done by him.
• Along with that, Bratty was unable to judge the circumstances and condition when he dis that act.

The court reviewed the trial statement and refused all statements given by solicitor. Further, court declared Bratty to be the offender and clearly rejected to give any exemption.
Judgement

Court rejected both the statements and gave their judgement on the basis of analysing some evidence which is as follows:

• Normal involuntary act is different from voluntary act.
• It is assumed that defendant act is arises by intentionally manner. . Court assume it Because of lack of strong evidence. Further, court does not give their judgement for the given statement. Therefore, it is the responsibility of offender to prove actual accuse.
• Further, jury also stated that anyone cannot be saved because of the reason of unsound mind as if a person is mentally ill, then doing crimes like rape and murder is not possible for him.
• The offender also get failed to provide medical report which shows the actual situation of accused person.
• Any accused person cannot be saved because of unsound mental condition.

Analysis by general statement

In this case, general term of omission is different from voluntary act. Thus, mistake is not considered as a serious nature of crime. But, it has some expectations like it must be automatism otherwise, this will not be treated as omission. Further, in this case, act done by Bratty is not treated as mistake because it is treated as a serious nature of crime. Furthermore, he was involved in rape activities that is for a mentally ill person is not possible. On the other hand, it is the duty of Barry to prove such accuse.

The similar case of R v Sullivan [1984] states that appellant kicked a man . At the time of this attack, man was suffering with mental instability. The court gave judgement on the basis of appropriate evidence. In this case, appeal was dismissed because of trial judge was considered that in this case offender were not hs mid controlled when he harms to another person. Further medical report also supported him. . The judge-states that evidence must be strong for proving the statement of accused person. Thus, The lord refused the case because of securing society’s interest as anyone cannot be saved from the doctrine of insane.

CASE 2:

Tom and Jerry is spouse who operates animal farm for the long-term period. Further, their financial conditions are not good. Therefore, one day Jerry asks to Tom for expanding business largely. But Tom replied angrily and said, burn the farm immediately. Then he goes to the wholesaler shop for the purpose of buying the animal food.

But Jerry took the statement of tom seriously and burnt the whole farm with intention that Tom will be happy . Moreover, Tom was shocked from the Jerry activities. So he went inside the house and held the china plate of Jerry. On other hand, Jerry grabbed the spade and run at the truck side for purpose of cutting the cable wire. Therefore, both party finally agreed to not harm each other products. Apart from this, Emma who is worker comes to farm but the farm owner refuse to allowing to gives job for long term period. At that time, Emma got furious and goes to the farm and cut cable wire but such act is not known by Tom and Jerry.

Analysis the case term

Mens rea – The legislation of criminal law states that mind of person must be free which able to analysis actual occurrence. This legal term observe the mind of defendant when he getting a crime. On other word, this term focus on mind of person when crime has committed. . Thus, where mens rea is not existed than it is arises restricted liability.. Furthermore, there are three level of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence.

In this case, as the statement is given out of frustration and irritation so this statement will not be considered seriously. On the other hand, the statement made by him does not harm anyone. But Jerry took it seriously and burned farm immediately when tom were goes to market for business purpose. it is to be noted that there is mens rea doctrine applied because he goes to market after angry statement made to jerry.

But, Jerry set the farm on fire because he thought Tom would be happy. But Jerry should have evaluated the reality of the situation. Burning of farm exhibits that this activity was done intentionally, so that Jerry is criminally liable under the act of criminal law. Thus, court treated it as intentionally activity because mind of Jerry is perfect and she is able to understand the situation properly.

On the other hand, when Tom comes to the farm than he become furious and decided to break china plate in to two pieces but before breaking the plate, Jerry turns to truck side for cutting the cable of truck. But ultimately, they decided not to break anything. Further, these acts are not covered in the provision of criminal act law because this are not serious nature act and not harm to anyone . Apart from this, Tom and Jerry quarrel may be treated as violence activities so that any one of the one party can claim on other party because of this activities cover in violence which is punishable under civil law provisions. . . on other hand,, if both party want to case on each other than such accuse is covered under civil act because this type of quarrel cover in unintentional activities.

Lastly, the Emma who is lady maid of farm house is getting furious because Tom and Jerry has been terminated from her job because of worse financial condition. Further, she got angry and cut the wire of the truck. So, in this case, Emma is liable under the act of criminal provision. It is because intention of her is to harm Tom and Jerry and because of this she cut the wire with intention that it would harm Tom and Jerry. Thus, she is liable under the act of criminal act provision. Court applied objectives test method for find out the mens reas level in this situation. Further, this test gives result regarding actual injury from violence activities..

Apart from this, if Tom was harmed by truck driving than Emma would be liable for the injury of Tom because this act is covered in high degree of accuse. On the other hand, if Tom knows the wire condition before driving truck than could have claimed under criminal act provision because intention of Emma is wrong for Tom and Jerry. Furthermore, court checks mind set of Emma further court find her guilty because she cut truck wire with wrong intention who's main purpose Is to harm Tom and Jerry. Therefore, court considered that situation and declared her guilty on the basis of mens rea doctrine. It because of her mind were guilty when she cutting the cable wire of truck. So this consequence cover in criminal nature crime.

The doctrine of strict liability states that party must be required to prove another party breach legislator provision with wrongful intention. These principles clearly states that party must be complied with law principle as state in legislation otherwise failure, may raised liability toward guilty parties.

On the other hand, Jerry is the owner of farm so she has full right to used as accordingly to state provision in legislation.. But she put the farm into fire because of misunderstanding of Tom's statement. Furthermore, act of Jerry did not have the intention to harm anyone . Then also court treated as a criminal because these activities are covered in serious nature of crime. Further, she is owner this does not mean that she does involve in any violate act with their own property. Apart from this, she also engaged in breach of statuary duty because she is obligated to comply with their duty as a state provision. Thus, failure arise liability towards him.

Summary of this question state that intention must be guilty at the time of offence has been arisen. Further, court checked the guiltiness by person intention. Therefore, courtanalysis guiltiness by applied the subjective test and objective test . The both test are important for knowing the actuality of the case. In case of court find out that accuse is related to non intentionally act than court provided remedy to such person by tranfer case to criminal insantiy act.. But it must be noted that everyone cannot be saved from insane doctrine further court require strong evidence. In this case, the Jerry will be treated as guilty because she was involved in serious nature of activities but she act in an unintentional way. On the other hand, Emma will be liable because she cut wire to harm Tom and Jerry. The Emma was terminated because Tom and Jerry financial condition are worse so that they have right to dismiss without giving any notice. Further, she can not be claimed for defence as well. assignment writing

REFERENCES

• Anthony, Thalia, and Melanie Schwartz. [2013] Invoking cultural awareness through teaching Indigenous Issues in Criminal Law and Procedure.
• Ashworth, Andrew, Lucia Zedner, and Patrick Tomlin, [2013]. Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
• Barkow, Rachel E., [2015]. Clemency and Presidential Administration of Criminal Law. NYUL.
• Chibueze, Remigius O. [2015]. Morning Panel: Evaluating International Law Adaptation to Halting Genocide and Mass Atrocities: A Review of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and International Criminal Court.
• Geyer, Florian. [2016]. Security versus justice?: police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. Routledge.
• Huneeus, Alexandra Valeria, [2013]. International criminal law by other means: the quasi-criminal jurisdiction of the Human Rights Courts.

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit