Evaluations

Question 1

NFO Evaluation: out of date

Answer 1

OAPA 1861: Only referred to physical harm:
* Victims may not receive justice
* No repercussions
* Defendants not facing justice
* Common law had to update statute.

Question 2

NFO Evaluation: Inconsistency

Answer 2

Mens rea of ABH = assault or battery
* Max sentence 6 months for assault/battery but 5 years for ABH.
* definition of wound

Question 3

NFO Evaluation: Need for modern language

Answer 3

GBH: Maliciously
Assault: too many uses

Question 4

NFO evaluation: Ideas for reform

Answer 4

• Removed inconsistency and overlap
• Clear actus reus and mens rea
• increased sentences give victims better protection.

Question 5

Intoxication evaluation: background

Answer 5

Previously not a defence:
R v Gamlen

Question 6

Intoxication eval: specific and basic intent

Answer 6

Fallback offences, if a specific crime was committed under the influence.

Question 7

Intoxication eval: level of intoxication

Answer 7

No fixed level
* Requires a large amount of evidence

Question 8

Intoxication eval: Competing interests

Answer 8

Personal autonomy: spend as much money as you like
Social Paternalism: Excessive consumption is discouraged
Victims rights: not always a defence
Defendants rights: Full defence for both types of intent

Question 9

Intoxication eval: Reform

Answer 9

• remove specific and basic intents
• being spiked
  drugs taken for medical purposes.

Question 10

General defences: Self Defence

Answer 10

Requirements:
* was force necessary?
* was force proportionate?

Question 11

Self defence: Necessary force

Answer 11

• Jury in R v Bird had difficulty deciding D’s force
• s.76 (6A) CJIA 2008: no duty to retreat
• s.76 CIJA 2008: If force was mistake, general defence applies

Question 12

Self defence: Competing interests

Answer 12

Victims rights: V has been assaulted for no reason
D’s rights: Had a genuine belief they were under attack.

Question 13

Self defence: Pre-emptive strike

Answer 13

D can act to prevent force: AG Ref (No.2 of 1983).

Question 14

Self defence: Characteristics

Answer 14

R v Martin: psychiatric evidence
R v Cairns: not enough psychiatric evidence.

Question 16

General defences: Importance

Answer 16

• removes criminal act
• contact sports
• tattooing and body modification (R v BM).
• Medical procedures: R v Blaue.