Law Essay代写:殴打和电击

2017-03-08 10:53

殴打和电击均被认为是裁判法院审理的普通法摘要罪行。为了建立一个刑事案件,然而,要证明没有防御的存在,建立犯罪意图和犯罪行为,后者本身需要论证的三要素:一种攻击,人身伤害[ 73 ]的因果关系和实际。这些都被解释为是在布朗案中的被告被指控袭击致造成身体伤害,尽管无可见损伤。此外,坎宁安的鲁莽所需要的是一个因素,因为主阿克纳[ 74 ]在上议院的决定必须建立在殴打罪。它会被某个主观轻率必须已在布朗案中,被告人的假设,当他们这样做,他们就可以自由地沉浸在施虐受虐狂而不冒犯公共道德。 它被解释,被告故意伤害被害人认为罪过是存在的,为揭示Venna [ 1976 ],当它被裁定被告主观轻率的坎宁安原理后显示。Venna随后被判ABH。因此,尽管某些例外,感知程度保证同意不能作为一个可接受的国防毕业,尽管攻击无法造成伤害(如布朗的情况)通常会指定一个普通攻击,在这种情况下,同意作为防御允许。其中一个问题的出现是对罪的附加定义的存在,它被认为“这是没有必要有实际的接触或任何身体伤害”[ 75 ]但突击”是任何行为,蓄意或罔顾后果地导致一个人领悟力或个人直接非法暴力”[ 76 ]。

Law Essay代写:殴打和电击

Assault and battery are both considered common law summary offences which are heard in Magistrates Courts. In order to establish a criminal case, however, it is necessary to prove that no defence exists and establish both mens rea and actus reus, the latter itself requiring three elements of proof: an assault, causation and actual bodily harm[73]. All of these were interpreted as being present when the defendants in the Brown case were indicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, despite the absence of visible injury. Additionally, Cunningham recklessness needed to be a contributing factor since Lord Ackner[74] in the House of Lords decided this must be established for the offences of assault and battery. It would have been interpreted that a certain subjective recklessness must have been present in the case of Brown, the defendants assuming, as they did, that they would be free to indulge in sado-masochism without offending public morals.

Where it has been interpreted that a defendant intended to harm the victim it is assumed that mens rea is present, as revealed in Venna [1976] when it was ruled that the defendants displayed subjective recklessness after the Cunningham principle. Venna was subsequently convicted of ABH. As such, despite certain exceptions, the graduation of perceived severity ensured that consent could not be used as an acceptable defence, despite the fact that an assault which fails to result in injury (as in the case of Brown) would normally be designated a common assault and, in such cases, permissible for consent to be used as a defence. One of the problems appeared to be the presence of additional definitions for the crime of assault, with it being suggested that “it is not necessary to have actual contact or any physical injury”[75] but assault “is any act which intentionally or recklessly causes a person to apprehend immediate unlawful force or personal violence”[76].

  • 上一篇:没有了
  • 下一篇:没有了