Introduction The law to recklessness has developed and changed over a very long time and for much of this time the two types of recklessness have been Cunningham Recklessness and Caldwell recklessness ‚ however this has recently changed. In this essay I am going to talk about the history of recklessness‚ how the case of R v G and another 2003 has affected it and the proposals for reform which were considered as a result of the case. The History on the Law on Recklessness The law on recklessness
Premium Law Criminal law Appeal
ADVANCEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY: GOOD OR HARM? As technologies and sciences are improving‚ from radio to computers‚ people nowadays can have a totally different style life than before. More and more devices are invented making people’s life easier. It is a good sign that people are improving as time goes on; however‚ it is also a challenge for youth. Many people‚ especially youths‚ now have more beneficial and luxurious life. Youth now gets more relaxing and lazy. As time goes on‚ it will be huge challenges
Premium Mobile phone Youth A Great Way to Care
In this essay I improved in the areas of presenting two arguments. When writing an essay that argues a certain point‚ it is important to present both sides of the argument in order to give importance to your thoughts and final point. In the Green Essay‚ I wrote about the importance of keeping family farms alive in America‚ and spent a majority of the essay writing about how family farms are more beneficial to our nation than corporate or factory farms. I do not think I did a good job in presenting
Premium Video game Video game industry
There are three main misdirection’s for the appeal‚ which can render the conviction unsafe‚ include: Consent‚ causation and intention. The appellant Billy was convicted under s.18 OAPA of the offences against the person act for causing grievous bodily harm to the victim Anita. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Billy and Anita was in a 12-year long relationship and they lived together. Their relationship involved engaging in inflicting pain on each other for sexual gratification. On the occasion in question‚
Premium Criminal law Acts of the Apostles Law
possible injuries a boxer may sustain throughout the course of an often short career. In any other circumstances the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) would categorise the infliction of these types of injuries as an assault occasioning actual bodily harm or even grievous bodily harm. Boxing has to date largely maintained its privileged status and thus defied the law. Perhaps this is a testament to a sport which demonstrates the need for skill and mental fortitude as well as having perceived societal benefits which
Premium Boxing Law Common law
greatest criticism is that because the OAPA was passed in1861 the language is outdated and antiquated‚ which causes confusion. Words like ‘grievous’ in s20 GBH have been modernised by case law‚ DPP v Smith stated that grievous should mean ‘really serious harm’. However this still calls into question the severity of ‘really serious’. Another ambiguous term from s20 GBH is ‘wounding’‚ this was defined in Eisenhower‚ an example of case law improving the statute. Yet case law can also be misleading as with
Premium Law Statutory law Common law
Historical background There is no written record about the temple Thekchok Kuenzangcholing Goenpa until now. According to Tshering (2016)‚ during early 16th century‚ there was a man who was extraordinary looking both physically and mentally. He was the most powerful man in the community and ill-treated the people. He was the lord of the Woong Pangthang Dzong. At the same time‚ there was another powerful man in Sharli. Once there was a struggle between two men‚ lord of a community. During that Lord
Premium Time Time Bhutan
occasioning in actual bodily harm”. Miller defines this as “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the v”‚ in which the falling down would cause Ken to experience some discomfort with falling to the ground. However this fall resulted in Ken breaking his hip. This is a GBH S20 as this break would have caused him to go to hospital. The AR of GBH S20 is “causing wound or GBH”. There isn’t a wound and therefore there is only grievous bodily harm. The case of Smith defines
Premium Battery Criminal law Causality
modernise and possibly get us to stop referencing cases that are over 300 years old - Tuberville v Savage (it’s fairly unlikely that anyone will have a sword drawn on them in the current age). The offence of s47‚ assault occasioning actual bodily harm would be replaced with the offence of intentionally or recklessly causing injury to another‚ it also stated that the prosecution no longer needed to prove the injury was caused by the assault or battery‚ simply that it was caused by the defendant.
Premium Law Crime Battery
Criminalizing Conduct: Harm Principle Re-considered Synopsis To criminalize a certain act is to declare that act illegal and devise sanctions in response to that act. This process of criminalizing an act is a rather extreme form of censuring whereby that particular conduct is made both unlawful and punishable. Hence‚ on what basis do we make the colossal leap in distinguishing what is wrong from what is right‚ and what should be prohibited from what should be allowed? The proceeding paragraphs
Premium Criminal law Crime