Criminal Liability
ISSUES
According to the facts presented containing information on Neil, Thomas and Kate the following are some of the pressing issues; The first issue dwells on the fact that Neil is following Thomas everywhere in the university taking pictures of him and his brown loafers, Neil also places those pictures Thomas’ pigeon hole, he also leaves gifts of brown polish on Thomas’ door step all of these actions lead Thomas to suffer from depression. The second issue deals with Kate’s actions whereby Kate who is a sado-masochist uses her red patent stilettos to walk on Neil’s back and uses her whip to whip Neil’s back this leads to deep puncture wounds and large welts on Neil’s back. Finally, the third issue dwells on the fact that Neil and Kate had sexual intercourse, whereby Neil had contracted HIV this led to Kate being infected with the virus. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether Kate and Neil are criminally liable for the actions they committed.
RULES AND APPLICATIONS
The relevant offences in accordance to those facts and the Offences against ‘The Persons Act 1861’ are stated as follows; Assault and Criminal transmission of HIV. The offence of assault is committed by Neil, according to Find Law.com in the article on ‘ The Elements of Assault’ assault refers to an act that when it is done is intended to cause a certain victim to become frightened of something or someone. Neil commits this offense towards Thomas. The actus reus of assault is the apprehension of violence whereby physical contact is not necessary but so long as the victim thought something was going to happen and became frightened after a certain act was done proved that actus reus was done, in this case Neil followed Thomas around, taking photos of him, even leaving gifts at his door and worse of all leaving pictures in his pigeon’s nest, this evidently scared Thomas leading him to develop stress and eventually drop out of school. The element of Mens rea is proved when it shows that Neil knowingly, intentionally and recklessly followed Thomas knowing very well that stalking someone would lead that someone to fear that something was going to happen. Neil is criminally liable for assaulting Thomas, the relevant cases in this scenario are; for actus Reus Longdon v. DPP (1967) and for mens rea R v. Spratt.
For the offence of Criminal transmission of HIV which is duly explained by LawTeacher.net, Neil is the one who committed this offence against a Kate. The two elements to prove are as follows, the actus reus which is the act or omission refers to the time when Neil had sexual intercourse with Kate the act is copulation, the element of Mens rea is proved when Neil acted recklessly whereby he knew that there was a possibility that he had HIV and instead of stopping the act he went on with it, even though he knew of the consequences. According to the ‘Cunningham test of Recklessness’ stated in Lawteacher.net states that for one to prove that recklessness was involved a single question had to be asked which was if whether the risk was in the defendant’s mind as he was committing the crime and whether he/ she knew the consequences that would follow had he/ she taken the risk. According to this statement it is highly evident that Neil knew the risk but still took it. Neil is criminally liable for transmitting HIV to Kate. A similar case is recorded in the HIV Law Guide which states information on the criminalisation of intentional HIV transmission and exposure. The relevant cases referred to are: for actus reus R v. Dica (2003) and for mens rea R v Cunningham (1957).
According to the issue of Kate walking on Neil’s back leading to serious injuries on Neil’s back, it can be proved that there is no criminal offense this is because of the defense of Volenti Non Fit Injuria stated in E-lawresources whereby Neil knew very well what a sado-masochist does and he consented and voluntarily agreed when Kate walked on his back. It can be concluded that Kate is not criminally liable for any offense.
CONCLUSION
The best thing for both Thomas and Kate to do is to take Neil to court for the crimes committed against them. The State will prosecute Neil for both offences it will be now the work of the State Prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Neil is guilty.
Works Cited
“Criminal Transmission of HIV.” LawTeacher.net. Web. 21 Aug. 2016.
“HIV Criminal Cases.” HIV Media Guide. Web. 21 Aug. 2016.
“Mens Rea Lecture.” lawteacher.net. Web. 21 Aug. 2016
Offences Against The Person Act of 1861. Legislative.go.uk. Web. 21 Aug. 2016.
“The Elements of Assault.” Find Law.com. 2013. Web. 21 Aug. 2016.
“Volenti non Fit Injuria.” E-lawresources. Web. 21 Aug. 2016.
