“Criminal law – OAPA / Criminal Damage problem question”;
First of all we will look at the first part of the problem question which is on Alpa and Ben, While Alpa And Ben were rehearsing Alpa kicked Ben as per her dialogue. Therefore, as a result of her action, Alpa could be criminally charged and charged for battery.
Alpa’s kick was an unlawful application of physical force. As mentioned in Fagan v MPC ‘A battery is the actual intended use of unlawful force to another person without his consent’. It has been set out that even a slightest touch is amounted as force (R v Thomas) and could be counted as battery, she kicked ben forcefully which is more than a slightest tounch. She therefore has committed the Actus Reus of the battery under the s (39) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. In (Faulkner v Talbot) Lord Lane CJ held that; ‘It need not necessarily be hostile, or rude or aggressive as some of the cases indicate’. Alpa should have considered the risk involve of physical damage to Ben, Her act was reckless. Intentional or reckless application of force is Mens Rea of Battery (R V Venna). Alpa wanted the act to be as realistic as possible this shows her intention to injure ben to make it look real and her contact to ben was very forceful so Alpa’s kick made Ben suffer from pain for several days, hence the MR is satisfies and the Court could decide that Anna is guilty of a battery.
Alpa & Chatvarin
The second scenario, while Chatvvrin is rehearsing, Alpa’s kick caused ben to lose his control/balance and he got hit to Chatvvrin which cause him to fall off the stage. He suffers a badly broken arm now. Alpa could be liable for Grievous Bodily harm (GBH), as stated in (R v Saunders) ) ‘serious harm’ It could be argued that Alpa is liable for the broken arm of Chatvarin, In OAPA 1861 s20 states two offences one maliciously wounding and the second inflicting previously bodily harm, Alpa could be charged on GBH. In the case of JCC v Eisenhower it was set out that both outer layers of skin should be broken, In chatvarin’s condition he has broken his arm. Infliction of gbh/wounding does not have to be applied directly (R V Martin). As Alpa applied the force on Ben but due to Ben losing control he got hit to Chatvvrin and it cause him injury. In DPP v Smith the HoL stated that gbh means ‘serious harm’. At the given scenario GBH or wound of Chatvarin can be directly applied and Alpa satisfies the AR.
A broken bone is a serious injury and which could not be healed in a single medical treatment. The mens Rea of Grievously Bodily Harm, Recklessness or intention to ‘some harm’. In Alpa’s case, she applied a direct force onto Ben while practicing a scenario from an upcoming play. It could be argued that she was between/around people which could cause her to cause ‘some harm’ or damage to someone or something or she could fall on someone (R v Mowatt) or that she foresaw or intended to harm or do the unlawful act (R v savage: DPP V parmenter)). Alpa could forsee the risk of harming. (R v Cunningham). The Mens Rea of GBH is s 20 intention or recklessness as ‘some harm’. In this case it could be taken as the subjective type of recklessness which means that the person had knowledge of the circumstances of the act. Alpa takes the risk of causing harm yet she does the act. Additionally, the MR on ben is to causing ‘some harm’ or battery, it transfers from one person to another as to Chatvarin, so it could be regarded as an offence. The Mens Rea could be satisfied for GBH s.20 in this case.
As mentioned in Cole v Turner if the consent goes beyond the everyday expectation it would be taken as an unlawful act, applying to Alpa’s case her realist kick to Ben’s jaw could go beyond the everyday expectation, not something which could be expected in a normal rehearsal drama class.
Alpa-Darren
Darren sent a message to Alpa and scaring her about what she did to chatvarin. He could be charged guilty of Assault in order to scare Alpa and not thinking the further consequences it could take. Under s.39 of Criminal Justice Act 1988, Darren could be charged.The Actus Reus of assault consists of apprehend,immediate,unlawful and inflction ( Collins v Wilcock). Darren committed an ‘act’ when he sent the message stating that Alpa would face the same consequences as Chatvarin. A threat can be immediate even if it might not be possible for the victim to hurt at the time being ( Smith v Ireland). The AR of assault is committed alone with the words (R v Ireland and Burstow) and when the defendant causes the other to apprehend the unlawful force (fagan vv MPC). It could be said that darren’s message accounts to an assault, only by Alpa’s believing that she could be harmed. In mens Rea it must be proved that the person intended to cause the risk of Alpa to panic and apprehend unlawful personal violence (R v Venna). Darren did not intend to harm Alpa just wanted to scare her, by which shows his recklessness. Taking the scenario into account Darren is guilty of assault under the law.
Alpa-Eric
In this scenario, when Alpa sees Eric running behind her she believes she in trouble. Alpa stops running and stabs Eric with a knife several times in his leg which resulted in serious leg injury and great blood loss due to the deep cuts. As mentioned in OAPA 1861 s.18 ‘ Whosover shall unlawfully and maliciously by an means wound or cause gbh…..shall be guilty of an offence’. As mentioned that Eric lost a significant amount of blood with deep cuts, it sets on the definition of wounds described in C v Eisenhower. Causing the GBH, ‘cause’ has a wider definition in this case and `GBH as per OAPA 1861 s 20. As alpa stabbed eric several times on his leg which ends as a wound AR is satisfied.
Mens Rea of s.18 of OAPA is an intention to cause GBH and Mens Rea for s.20 is ‘maliciously’ . If Alpa was aware of that fact that the conduct she carried was very harmful and wounding the Mens rea could be satisfied.
The prosecution would have to decide whether in causing GBH with intent, Alpa intended to harm Eric or It was not what she intended to do but did out of recklessness and panic. If the jury is not satisfied beyond the reasonable doubt that Alpa is guilty of offence under Actus Reus and Mens rea. If the Actus reus and Mens Rea are satisfied under s.18 or s.20 of OAPA, she might establish self-defense at this point. To establish self-defence Alpa must prove that applying force was mandatory (R v Gladstone). Taking Darren’s message into account it was threatening and it was very reasonable for a reasonable person to be scared and think that she could be attacked after the rehearsals and seeing Eric alpa thought that Eric was approaching to harm her. Alpa’s stabbing to eric could be argued as reasonable but giving account to that she was panicked and stressed of getting harm s. 76 (7) of Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008. Hence, we can say that Alpa can rely on self-defense as a defense.
Later on, Alpa is upset and she uses the knife and writes ‘I am sorry’ Eric on the glass in large letters, of the bus stand. The damaged caused to the glass of bus stop by Alpa could cause criminal damge, Alpa has committed an offence under s1 (1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 causing damage intentionally or recklessly. She could be criminally liable for the criminal damages. The words carved on the glass would clearly involve the council changing the glass of bus stand (Roe v Kingerlee).The AR of criminal damage is destroying or damaging property belonging to someone else. It could be argued whether Alpa was reckless in the situation/subjective sense or had an intention. Alpa caused damage and endangered the life of eric intentionally or recklessly. Alpa could be liable for arson under S1 (3) for destroying and damaging the glass of local bus station.
section 10.1, 10.2 & 10.3 CDA 1971. Taking all the factors into account, the court could decide that it will be constituted as a damage it seems highly probable that the Actus Reus hof the Criminal Damage could be satisfied under all the factors stated.
Section 1. 1 f CDA is based on the recklessness and intention to destruction or damaging of a property belonging to someone else, Alpa intended to scratch words on the glass of bus stop . It satisfies the Mens rea and it amounts to damage Alpa could be guilty of Criminal damages under s1.1 of CDA 1971.
Alpa-Fran
In this case, Alpa may be liable under the s 13 of CDA 1971. As per this section, If any individual does criminal damage through fire then he/she might be liable for Arson. The Actus Reus for arson is same as criminal damage (discussed in the Eric scenario) as the damage has been done with fire ( R v Miler). Alpa recklessly set fire to the dumped newspaper and other papers which caused a huge fire. Under the s 10.1 of CDA 1971 the house,furniture,recycle bins are all part of the property and it is all owned by Fran under s 10.2 CDA 1971 statutory provision. Hence Ar is satisfied at this point. Whereas Mens Rea for Arson is s.1.1 of CDA, it is clear by the facts that Alpa had an intention to destroy the recycle bin as she thought that it would be funny, Men Rea is also satisfied at this point. It could be said that Alpa is guilty.
If the whole scenario would have not fulfilled the conditions of Arson then it could have not b considered as aggravated criminal damages. It could be argued whether Alpa intended to the damages or it was reckless that life’s could be on danger. If Alpa did not intend and foresee that she is putting life on risk of other people she would not be guilty under the aggravated criminal damages if she proves beyond reasonable doubt..