Explain the actus reus and mens rea of the defences to assault and any other crime that Carol might be charged with for causing injury to Alan

You must use case laws for reference purposes. Proper explanation about the actus reus and mens rea of the defences is required. After reading the case study of this task, you need to find out what Carol might be charged with for causing injury to Alan and doing this crime

Criminal Law Course Law 2.

Monty, Joe, Carol and Jim and Allan are allotment holders in Aberdeen. They are very enthusiastic gardeners and also play in mixed hockey team.

Jim and Monty often compete against one another at local horticultural shows. Relations between two of them have deteriorated in recent months since Jim accused Monty of interfering with the growing of his prize vegetables. One day Jim discloses that his prize cabbages have been demolished by snails which appear to have been transported to Jim’s allotment in a huge bucket. Jim goes over to Monty’s allotment and confronts him about damage done. Monty denies all knowledge and suspects he is in fact the superior gardener. The argument escalates and Monty challenges Jim to come and sort things out ‘once for all’ beside the tool shed. They exchange some blows before Monty begins to overcome Jim. Jim regroups and strikes Monty on the side of the head, knocking him over the ground. The allotment holder comes to see what has happened. In order to stop Jim, Alan trips him up with his hoe and then restraints Jim on the ground by sitting on his back and twisting his arm up his back. Alan tells Jim he is making a citizen’s arrest.

Carol becomes very upset when she sees the incident and starts to scream that Alan has killed him. Joe tells Carol to be quiet, but, she will not listen and he slaps her on the face as he has heard that is an effective way of calming down hysterical women. Jim, Alan, Joe are arrested for assault.

Two months later Jim, Carol and Alan are playing hockey in one team, and Joe and Monty in the other in a local league fixture. It is tightly fought game at one stage Monty is chasing down a ball. He collides with Carol and knocks down to ground. In his enthusiasm, Monty runs over her. Although Carol is shaken and bruised. She manages to play on. Joe is marking her as his opponent in the game and taunts her about her out burst at the allotment. Carol becomes increasingly annoying at him and in the course of the tackle she pushes him over and whacks him on the shins and knees with her hockey stick away. It flies through the air and hits Alan on the side of the face. He suffers a fractured cheek bones as a result. The match descends into chaos and the police are called. Carol and Monty are arrested for assault. The police tell her that they are making further inquiries into the cause of Alan’s injury.

With reference to the case law and other relevant authority explain the actus reus and mens rea of the defences to assault and any other crime that Carol might be charged with for causing injury to Alan (30%)

And

Apply the law to explain whether Jim, Alan, Joe, carol and Monty would be found guilty or not guilty giving reasons for your findings. (70%).

Maximum words (+10% = 1980 maximum).

Sample Answer

Legal Analysis of Assault and Criminal Liability under UK Law

Introduction

This paper examines the legal concepts of actus reus and mens rea as they apply to assault and related criminal offences, in light of a case involving five individuals: Carol, Jim, Alan, Joe, and Monty. The task is to analyse the possible charges arising from their actions and determine their legal liability using established case law and statutory provisions. Special attention is given to Carol’s actions that led to Alan’s injury during a hockey match. The report applies criminal law principles to establish whether each individual would likely be found guilty or not guilty, providing reasoned analysis for each conclusion.

Actus Reus and Mens Rea in Assault and Related Defences

In criminal law, for a person to be held liable, two elements must generally be proven: actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). Assault and battery are foundational offences that illustrate these concepts. Assault refers to causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful violence, while battery involves the actual application of unlawful force. These offences may escalate into more serious forms, such as Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) or Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH), under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

The actus reus of assault is the conduct that causes a person to fear immediate unlawful violence. No physical contact is necessary. The mens rea is the intention to cause such fear, or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused, as explained in R v Ireland [1998]. In battery, the actus reus is the application of unlawful force, while the mens rea is the intention or recklessness in applying that force (R v Venna [1976]).

Defences to assault include self-defence, prevention of crime, and consent. Self-defence is lawful if the defendant honestly believes that force is necessary and uses reasonable force in the circumstances. The defence was clearly stated in R v Gladstone Williams [1984], where the court held that an honest but mistaken belief can support self-defence. Consent is a valid defence in situations where physical contact is implied, such as in sports, but only for conduct within the rules of the game. In R v Barnes [2004], it was held that only conduct that is sufficiently grave to be considered criminal falls outside the scope of consent in sports.

Carol’s actions in injuring Alan must be analysed in this context. She struck Joe with a hockey stick and, in the process, unintentionally injured Alan, causing a fractured cheekbone. Carol could be charged with ABH or even GBH. Under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, ABH occurs when an assault causes actual bodily harm. The mental element requires only intention or recklessness as to the application of force, not necessarily as to the extent of injury (R v Roberts [1971]). If the injury is serious, such as a fractured bone, Carol may be liable under section 20 of the same Act for unlawful wounding or GBH. The mental element for section 20 requires intention or recklessness as to causing some harm (R v Savage [1992]). Although Carol did not intend to harm Alan, her reckless conduct in using the hockey stick in that manner may satisfy the requisite mens rea.

Application of Law to the Individuals

In applying the law to the facts, the actions of each party must be considered in turn.

Jim’s conduct towards Monty during their confrontation at the allotment constitutes assault, possibly escalating to ABH if injury occurred. While Monty invited Jim to settle the matter physically, English law does not recognise consent as a defence in fights, except in limited circumstances. In R v Brown [1993], the court held that consent was not a defence to actual bodily harm in a fight. Jim’s act of striking Monty on the head is likely to be considered excessive and unjustified, particularly since the initial disagreement did not necessitate violence. Jim’s actions meet both the actus reus and mens rea for ABH, and self-defence is unlikely to succeed given the disproportionate force used.

Continued...