the Person Act of 1861, and the Common Law
Facts: Neil, a student in medicine, a heavy shoe fetishist, who found men’s brown shoes a real turn on. His course mate Thomas bought a pair of designer’s brown loafers which attracted Neil very strongly. Neil started obsessively to follow him and to take pictures of him wearing the brown shoes. He even started to make him small presents as brown shoe polish, laces or even pictures, leaving them in his student pigeon-hole. Just before his exams, Thomas felt himself ill, through all this stress, and asked the doctor to sign him off university. The doctor did that stating that he was suffering from severe depression.
Issues: What delicts are committed and are Neil and Kate liable for them.
Rules: Article 42 of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 and Tort Law, negligence and recklessness.
Application: In order to have a crime and respective liability, the person has to be acknowledged to be guilty. Guilt is the only condition that has to be vivid or proved in order to be considered that a crime is committed. The act of the person, in itself, is not a crime, nevertheless that the result of it is negative. He/she will not be considered liable. Here is the place the two key terms of the English criminal law to be mentioned. Actus reum and mens rea. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which in ordinary English means an act does not make a person guilty unless mind is also guilty is the expression that gave birth to these key terms. In simple words it means that there is no crime until there is no guilt.
Intention (direct or oblique) is the most important element of the guilt. The heaviest crimes are performed usually with direct intention which means that the offender intended to do the action and intended to reach exactly those negative consequences that really followed his/her action. Other modifications of guilt are omission to act, negligence, recklessness and a very important element of the crime is the legal causation, i. e. the connection between the criminal action and the consequences.
In the case of Neil and Kate there several negative consequences of their actions which can be related to their actions. Thus the legal causation is in evidence. There are three bad consequences, the depression of Thomas where Neil had committed negligence (he didn’t know but he was obliged to foresee the bad consequence of his actions), the wounds on his back (Kate also neglected the bad consequences that actually followed) and the recklessness of Neil suspecting that he had contracted HIV but he self-confidently relied that not to happen, but in addition to Kate’s non-responsibility to take preventive measures, led to her contracting HIV.
Conclusion: Considering all circumstances described above, it may be concluded that Neil was guilty and therefore he was liable for the bad consequences that took place and he had to undergo the respective punishment.
Reference
Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, 1861 (24 and 25 Vict. C. 100), Web Retrieved on
