25. Burglary and related offences

2021 ◽  
pp. 1046-1069
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Offence ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Separate Form

Burglary is an offence under the Theft Act 1968. The offence is not confined to ‘breaking and entering’ in order to steal, but involves entering any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to steal anything in the building or inflict or attempt to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. A separate form of burglary is found in s 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 where a person has entered as a trespasser and thereafter attempted to steal, actually stole something, inflicted grievous bodily harm or attempted to inflict grievous bodily harm. This chapter looks at burglary and related offences and also discusses aggravated burglary and the articles of aggravation, as well as trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence.

25. Burglary and related offences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Offence ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Separate Form

Burglary is an offence under the Theft Act 1968. The offence is not confined to ‘breaking and entering’ in order to steal, but involves entering any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to steal anything in the building or inflict or attempt to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. A separate form of burglary is found in s 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 where a person has entered as a trespasser and thereafter attempted to steal, actually stolen something, inflicted grievous bodily harm or attempted to inflict grievous bodily harm. This chapter looks at burglary and related offences, and also discusses aggravated burglary and the articles of aggravation, as well as trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence.

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. Voluntary manslaughter

2021 ◽  
pp. 540-588
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Self Control ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Loss Of Self ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Partial Defences ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

Manslaughter is defined by common law as any unlawful homicide that is not murder. The offence is limited by murder at one extreme and accidental killing at the other. Manslaughter can be either ‘voluntary’ or ‘involuntary’. This chapter deals with voluntary manslaughter: this occurs when someone had the intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm, but relies on a partial defence to murder. The two partial defences considered in this chapter are loss of self- control and diminished responsibility (suicide pact is dealt with in Ch 15). This chapter scrutinizes the defences available to the accused and in particular the developing case law under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 on loss of control and diminished responsibility, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Golds and the series of Court of Appeal cases since that decision.

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.

10. Non-fatal offences against the person

2020 ◽  
pp. 262-309
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Coherent Structure ◽  
Disease Transmission ◽  
Psychiatric Illness ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
Life Itself ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Different Levels

This chapter examines non-fatal offences that range from a trivial tap on the shoulder to levels of harm threatening life itself. While the relevant offences are archaic in their definition and lacking in any coherent structure, they are extremely important because they are frequently prosecuted and they also give rise to interesting questions on issues central to the criminal law, such as how the autonomy of the individual should be respected. The chapter considers whether psychiatric illness can amount to an offence against the person; what level of harm constitutes ‘actual’ bodily harm as opposed to ‘grievous’ bodily harm; and whether actual bodily harm must be ‘inflicted’ or merely caused. Finally, the chapter examines the criminalization of disease transmission. This also chapter examines the controversial question of whether and, if so, when a sane adult should be permitted to consent to harm to himself or to the risk of harm to himself. It considers the threshold of harm—should V be permitted to consent to any level of harm or only to minor harms; whether a person should be permitted to consent to different levels of harm in certain activities: surgery, boxing, horseplay, etc; whether the transmission or risk of transmission of diseases or infections can be consented to; and what constitutes ‘true’ consent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document