7. Non-fatal offences against the person

2020 ◽  
pp. 161-191
Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Key Points

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This chapter first discusses the five main non-fatal offences against the person: assault (also referred to as ‘common assault’); battery; assault occasioning actual bodily harm; maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm; and wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. It also examines the defence of consent, and the two poisoning offences which are indictable only: maliciously administering poison or a noxious thing so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm under s.23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and maliciously administering poison or a noxious thing with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy, contrary to s.24 of the same Act.

7. Non-fatal offences against the person

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Key Points

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This chapter first discusses the five main non-fatal offences against the person: assault (also referred to as ‘common assault’); battery; assault occasioning actual bodily harm; maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm; and wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. It also examines the defence of consent, and the two poisoning offences which are indictable only: maliciously administering poison or a noxious thing so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm under s.23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and maliciously administering poison or a noxious thing with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy, contrary to s.24 of the same Act.

5. Murder and voluntary manslaughter

2020 ◽  
pp. 99-132
Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Loss Of Control ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This chapter explores the elements of murder and the partial defences which reduce a defendant’s liability to voluntary manslaughter. Murder is a common law offence that is committed when a defendant unlawfully causes the death of a person with an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Where a defendant has both the actus reus and mens rea for murder, but also has one of three special, partial defences available to him, his liability for murder is reduced to that of manslaughter (voluntary manslaughter). Loss of control, diminished responsibility, suicide pact, and infanticide are also discussed.

5. Murder and voluntary manslaughter

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Loss Of Control ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This chapter explores the elements of murder and the partial defences which reduce a defendant’s liability to voluntary manslaughter. Murder is a common law offence that is committed when a defendant unlawfully causes the death of a person with an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Where a defendant has both the actus reus and mens rea for murder, but also has one of three special, partial defences available to him, his liability for murder is reduced to that of manslaughter (voluntary manslaughter). Loss of control, diminished responsibility, suicide pact, and infanticide are also discussed.

scholarly journals The dependence of the nature of the crime to the type of trauma the perpetrator (for example, minors convicted of violent crimes)

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.Dzh. Khachaturyan ◽  
M.N. Abdurasulova
Keyword(s):  
Family History ◽  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Psychological Adjustment ◽  
Family System ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Violent Crimes ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
History Of ◽  
Polygeneration System

The article is devoted to psychological correction of juvenile offenders for violent crimes. The authors, based on the fundamentals polygeneration system of traumatology, hypothesize about the presence of a family history of juvenile offenders system traumas. The study was conducted in PKU Nakhodka educational colony GUFSIN Russia for the Primorye territory in January-February 2017. The study involved 23 minors convicted of violent crimes. All system traumas are divided into four types: existential trauma, trauma of losses, trauma of relationship and trauma family system. Conclusions about what the nature of the offence depends on the depth and type of traumatization of the perpetrator and his family system. All examined juvenile offenders are themselves victims of traumatic events in their own families. The main types of trauma from sex offenders are trauma of losses and trauma of relationship. Family convicted of murder filled with existential trauma, trauma of relationship and trauma family system. Convicted of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm had an average degree of trauma. There are all kinds of trauma in their experience, with a predominance of existential trauma. Offered the main directions of psychological adjustment to each category of prisoners.

scope of that design and used the extreme violence which was intended to cause grievous bodily harm or death. The judge’s direction in the appellant’s case did not deal with that situation (or with) the appropriate verdict of not guilty should the jury find the second and/or third defendant went beyond what was contemplated by the appellant. On the facts of the case there were only two verdicts open to the jury, guilty or not guilty of murder. If, as the Crown contended, she was a party to an agreement to kill, she was guilty of murder. If she was a party to an agreement to inflict some harm, short of grievous bodily harm, then she was guilty of neither murder nor manslaughter. The victim’s killing and the manner of the killing could not be within the ambit of the agreement to which the appellant was a party, if the ambit was confined on her part to an intention that only some harm should befall the deceased, albeit not death or really serious injury. The issues involved could not be distinguished from those adumbrated by Widgery LJ in Lovesey and Peterson (1969) 53 Cr App R 461. The judge failed to remind the jury of the law as laid down in Anderson and Morris (1966) 50 Cr App R 216 and followed in Lovesey and Peterson (1969) 53 Cr App R 461. The result of that non-direction was that the jury returned a verdict which was not open to them. R v Stewart and Schofield [1995] 3 All ER 159 (CA)

1996 ◽  
pp. 408-424
Keyword(s):  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Extreme Violence ◽  
The Law ◽  
Serious Injury

13. Privity and the interests of third parties

2021 ◽  
pp. 345-364
Author(s):  
Richard Taylor ◽  
Damian Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Specific Performance

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. This chapter examines the privity rule, which states that only a party to the contract can sue upon it. It discusses the development of the privity rule, distinguishing the privity rule from the consideration rule, evading the privity rule, techniques for giving a right directly to a third party or apparent third party, specific performance in favour of a third party and damages for a third party’s loss, and the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document