Within this essay I will be discussing in depth the differences between civil and criminal law and also the courts within them. Whilst focussing on a certain written scenario, advice to all the relevant parties will also be given relating to liabilities and obligations under English law. The consequences and/or possible penalties will also be included within the essay with acts of parliament and cases to aid in supporting all points made.
1. Differences between civil and criminal law (including courts – Show as an appendix)
Criminal law focuses on more serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape and fraud. To be held guilty of a crime, two elements need to be considered. The first of which is Actus Reus, this is the guilty act of the person during the committing of the crime. The next element is the mens rea which is the guilty mind of the person and is as important as the actual doing of the crime as it helps to assess the liability of the offence. Although there are some crimes where no mens rea is required, under S20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 ‘’whosoever shall unlawfully wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence’’ which states that if an Actus Reus is present, you will be held liable. There is a four-tier level of courts when focussing on criminal and civil law. Within criminal law, you can be charged for offences such as murder, theft and rape. There is the magistrates court, the crown court, the court of appeal and the supreme court. Civil law deals with offences such as motoring offences. These crimes can go through either the county court, the high court of justice, the court of appeal and finally the supreme court. (See Appendix A for a diagram and detailed explanation on both the criminal and civil court system.)
Claiming state benefits whilst working
Within the case study it states that the young couple Luke and Lisa, are claiming state benefits whilst Luke works on a zero-hours contract as a plasterer. Legally you are able to claim state benefits but only if you fall under the correct criteria. Under the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, it is an offence to claim state benefits without informing the state that you are completing paid work. This is also known as benefit fraud. Some penalties for benefit fraud can include the loss of benefits for up to 3 years, a fine between £350 and £5000 and also a possible prison sentence of up to 7 years.
Giving children sleeping pills
Before Lisa left her home, she fed her young children sleeping pills. There isn’t an official law which states that you cannot give your child sleeping pills but the use of melatonin is advised against by the NHS. Although this is the case, any harm caused to the child in result of being given a sleeping pill could violate the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. Parental responsibility must be considered as ‘’all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority, which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child’’ under Section 3 of the Children’s Act 1989.
Leaving children at home
Lisa and Luke then left all their children at home whilst they attended a social event, this can be seen as child negligence. Similarly, to the previous point, there is no law which states a specific age of which a child should not be left home alone. Although, according the NSPCC ‘’Babies, toddlers and young children should never be left alone’’. It will only become a crime if the child’s life is put at risk whilst being left home alone, this is supported by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which also advises that a parent shouldn’t do so as they can then be fined and/or given a jail sentence as this is seen as neglect.
Driving with no tax, mot or insurance
To add to the previous offences, Luke then decided to drive a vehicle to the event which had no tax, MOT or insurance. All motoring offences fall under strict liability and therefore Luke will not be able to excuse this offence. Under the Car Tax Act 1983 an individual can be fined up to £1000 if any of your vehicles that are in use are not taxed. In addition to this, if your vehicle is on the road and in use, you can be fined a maximum of £5,000 under Section 133 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The only exemption of being prosecuted is if the MOT for the vehicle is booked or the vehicle is being driven to the test centre.
transfer of malice
Whilst at the event, Lisa attempted to hit a person with her handbag, Lisa missed this person which resulted in her smashing a crystal object, then accidentally sending a crystal fragment into a victim’s eye. Even though the Mens rea was not present in harming the third party, it was present for Becky which therefore created a transfer of malice. Under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1989 states that ‘’a person is guilty of an offence if s/he uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour in a public or private place which Lisa can be held guilty for. Although Lisa did not physically harm the intended person, the verbal assault was present as the victim was put in fear for the use of threatening words. A case to refer to relating to transfer of malice is R v Latimer (1886). (This case can be viewed in detail in Appendix B.)
Spice – acceptance of drugs acceptance in contract LAW – civil
Whilst at the event, Luke was gifted a sachet of ‘spice’ by Tom which Luke accepted. This is a form of civil law. A person can be prosecuted if found guilty of possession with the intent to supply controlled drugs which comes under Section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On assumption that the gift Tom had given was a class B drug, he can receive a sentence of up to 14 years imprisonment if he is found guilty. As well as Tom being liable for dealing, Luke’s capacity to enter into this contract may not be valid which can therefore drop how liable he was for accepting the drugs as a gift. This is due to Luke being presumably intoxicated through the consumption of eight pints of cider.
Drink driving
After Luke consumed eight pints of cider, and Lisa consumed four large glasses of wine, they both decided to drive back home despite the fact that they were both intoxicated. Under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, ‘’if a person is driving or attempting to drive and is unfit to do so through drink or drugs, then they are guilty of an offence.’’ This is due to the fact that not only were the pair putting their own lives at risk but they were also putting the lives of the public at risk also. Most road traffic offences fall under strict liability and punishments such as 6 months imprisonment, an unlimited fine and also a ban from driving for at least a year is amongst the possible legal punishments that can be given.
Off duty PC
Another relevant party is Adam who was an off-duty PCSO at the time of the event. Adam made it clear that he did not want to take any action at the event on the night as he didn’t want it to ruin his evening. This is seen as an offence as he was in position of public office and therefore had a duty to act upon the illegalities that went on during the night. A case that relates to this is R v Dytham 1979 (This case can be seen in more detail in Appendix C.) Adam could also be charged with aiding and abetting drink driving which can carry the same charges as the person drink driving.
Battery/assault *
When Luke and Lisa arrived home, Lisa attempted to unlock the door of her neighbour, mistaking their flat for her own. When the neighbour did so, Luke grabbed the neighbour and shouted abuse at him. This is a result of Battery and verbal abuse upon the neighbour. Under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ‘’Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon another person either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence’’ supports that Luke is guilty of battery against his neighbour. To commit a crime under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, it is required that the Actus Reus and Mens Rea is present in the act.
Occupiers liability – civil – Jordan owe luke a duty of care (window sills) trespassing *
Trespassing is a form of civil crime. Within this scenario, Luke was a person with no permission to enter into Jordan’s home, he was considered a trespasser rather than a visitor. As the occupier, you must not in any way injure a trespasser and must also do everything they can to prevent an injury being inflicted onto a trespasser. (A case relating to the occupier’s liability act can be seen in Appendix D) An occupier owes a trespasser a duty of care if they are aware of a danger within their land. This then links to Jordan being aware of the rotted window sills within his property as this posed a danger upon himself and any visitors or trespassers within his property.
Involuntary Manslaughter *
As Jordan toppled out of his second-floor window and therefore died from his injuries, Luke will be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. This occurs where the mens rea for the murder of the victim is not present. Due to the aggressive pushing and shoving from Luke, Jordan died. Although, this can be argued on Luke’s behalf as it wasn’t the final push that killed Jordan, it was the fact that the wooden window sills that Jordan was pushed into was rotted away and could not support Jordan’s weight. So Luke can argue that Jordan was not abiding by the Occupier’s liability Act 1984. Jordan knew of the worn down and damaged window sill but still provided the opportunity of harm to come to any visitor or trespasser within his premise.
2. Conclusion (sum up advice)
In conclusion, under English Law, many parties within this case are guilty of committing a crime. Luke is found guilty of driving with no tax, MOT or insurance. He is also found guilty of claiming state benefits whilst working, drink driving, assault and battery, the possession of drugs, and involuntary manslaughter. Lisa is found guilty of assault, and transferred malice. Tom will be charged for the gifting of drugs and having the intent to supply to a person with low capacity to accept the offer whilst being intoxicated. Adam is also found liable for aiding and abetting drink driving and ignoring his duty to act in a position of public office. Jordan
Although both Luke and Lisa could have been putting their children at risk when feeding them sleeping pills and leaving them home alone, no official conviction can be made as we know of no harm that was made to them.
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Actus-reus.php
https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/criminal-law/committing-an-offence/mens-rea/
https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/high-court/
https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/county-court/
https://fullfact.org/law/criminal-courts-explained/
https://www.gov.uk/benefit-fraud
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/leaving-child-home-alone/
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/133
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/20
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/3
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/4
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52
https://motoringlawyersonline.com/how-can-you-be-arrested-for-drink-driving-if-you-are-a-passenger/
APPENDIX A
Criminal and Civil court system
Focussing on criminal law, depending on the severity of the case, there are different courts that the case can be taken and be trialled for. Your case can be taken to the magistrates court which focusses on smaller offences such as a motoring offence. The punishment for this crime is also less severe and the maximum fine that you could receive is £5,000 and/or a jail sentence of 12 months. The next level of court is the high court which deals with trials containing crimes of serious robbery and murder. Whilst being trialled by a jury during these hearings, the final result can end up in the guilty person(s) having to face jail time, unpaid labour and/or a fine. The third tier of courts is the court of appeal which focusses on appeals given from hearings from the crown court and if the final verdict has been given out fairly.
Similarly, there are four-tiers of courts within civil law where cases can be brought to. This includes county courts. Within county courts, cases such as people trying to claim compensation for any injuries they have suffered from or a professional business wanting to receive money that they are rightfully owed can be heard within a county court. Next is the high court of justice and the court of appeal which works similarly to the criminal law’s high court and court of appeal.
Finally, within the court system of criminal and civil law lies the highest form of court which deals with more severe crimes
(reference)
APPENDIX B
Transfer of malice
Within the case of R v Latimer (1886) the defendant got into a fight with a man whilst at the pub. The defendant then made the decision to take off his belt and hit the victim with the it. The belt then bounced off the man and hit a third party in the face. The defendant was then found guilty of the injuries that were inflicted upon the woman even though the Mens Rea was not present within the act of hitting the third party. The mens rea was that he intended to hit the man with the belt, but this was then transferred.
APPENDIX C
Crime by Omission
Within this case, the defendant was a police officer and whilst on duty, stood by and watched whilst a bouncer kicked a man to his death. The officer was then charged with the offence of misconduct as being a police officer. The defendant then tried to argue that the offence couldn’t be committed by omission as it particularly requires misconduct. The defendant was not successful in his argument and was still found guilty.
APPENDIX D
Occupier’s liability
Within the Revill v Newberry case, the defendant suffered from multiple thefts from his allotment. Due to this, he decided to hide and wait to see who was thieving from his allotments. When he saw movement, he pulled the trigger at the unknown suspect. The defendant was then found guilty of harming and wounding the plaintiff. Although the trespasser most probably had intentions of robbing the defendant, the defendant was sued for £4000 as he was still to owe the trespasser a duty of care under the Occupier’s liability act 1984.