The types of intentional torts implicated here are battery and fraud. The former (fraud) is defined as “the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of another without his consent.” The latter (fraud) is defined as a “knowing misrepresentation”; a false statement of material fact that was knowingly or recklessly made by the defendant with the intent to induce reliance by the plaintiff. Punitive damages, which are designed to punish the defendant and deter all other potential defendants in the marketplace, are awarded to plaintiffs above and beyond their actual damages. In cases of intentional torts (i.e., when there is findings of wilfullness, maliciousness, or recklessness), punitive damage awards will be upheld provided they meet the ranges/ratios of punitive damages to actual damages, set forth in recent U.S. Supreme Court cases (BMW and State Farm). APPLICATION: Here, there was substantial evidence that the defendant, Motel knew of the widespread existence of bedbugs in their rooms.
DURESS BY THREATS INTRODUCTION The general nature of the defence of duress is that the defendant was forced by someone else to break the law under an immediate threat of serious harm befalling himself or someone else, ie he would not have committed the offence but for the threat. Duress is a defence because:- "...threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary powers of human resistance should be accepted as a justification for acts which would otherwise be criminal." (Attorney-General v Whelan [1934] IR 518, per Murnaghan J (Irish CCA) The defendant bears the burden of introducing evidence of duress and it is then up to the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting under duress. If a defence is established it will result in an acquittal. 1.
Sub is negligent by violating a statute that is designed to protect against this type of accident and Phil is within the class of people that the statute was designed to protect. 2. Causation – a. Actual - the plaintiff’s injuries were the actual, factual result of the defendant’s actions. Had Sub not discharged his loaded, unlicensed gun towards Phil, Phil would not have been shot in the shoulder.
Section 4(1) of the Theft Act states that property includes money and all other property, including things in action and intangible property. Unless a person intends to give back the exact same money (e.g. notes and coins) they have the intention to permanently deprive the victim those particular notes and coins they have assumed the rights of. Mike in scenario one is intending to permanently deprive, as he did not return the battery and took the money. If he did not intend to replace the exact money he took it is theft.
According to the retribution theory punishing offenders have its advantages which may gain from illegal acts. Supporters of retribution may argue that it is wrong to let the guilty party escape punishment. To allow the guilty to avoid punishment is to deny the dignity of choosing their action. Retribution does not allow for punishment of innocent parties or for the discipline of those responsible for their
Oblique Intent is where the defendant has one purpose in mind but in achieving that purpose also causes other consequences as in Hancock and Shankland 1986. Recklessness the second level of mens rea is the taking of an unjustifiable risk as shown in G and Another 2003 when two young boys who were convicted of arson did not foresee that setting fire to a pile of papers would cause approximately £1 million in damage. There are two levels of recklessness, Subjective where the defendant realises the risk but decides to take it anyway as shown in R v Cunningham 1957 Objective where an ordinary person would have realised the risk and would be guilty of the offence even if he did not realise the risk as in MPC v Caldwell 1981. Transferred Malice is when someone intends to commit a crime against one person, but in fact commits the same crime against another. The law transfers the intention from the intended victim to the
Beccaria also says that people chose to commit crimes for greed and personal need. Also he concluded that punishment is necessary and that the punishment should be in proportion to the crime. Origins of different sentencing schemes in the United States are traced to Beccaria. Beccaria says that punishments should be swift, certain, and just. The Positivist School theory explains crime in the sense that people are destined to be criminals based on factors outside their control.
Hugh and Keith problem question unit guide page 12- Rickesh Punjani Hugh may be guilty of a theft or burglary charge under the theft act 1968. The basic definition under section one of the theft act 1968 is that a person Is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be considered accordingly. We can tell from section one of the theft act that the actus reus of a theft is the appropriation of property belonging to another. Appropriation simply means assuming the owners right to that property. From the scenario we can see that Hugh has done this when he has ‘sneaks round his father’s house and takes the bike with a view of selling it’.
To do wrong and commit crime is a choice of the criminal. Criminals have derived of an enormous list of excuses explaining why they commit crimes. The classical direction to crime discipline policies deals with direct interference techniques. Police force within this course; choose a more hostile approach to toward criminal offenses (Gonzalez, 2007). Nonetheless, without considering the penalties of their actions criminals keep on commit crimes at an alarming rate.
Delegation can be closely compared to empowerment when looking at the big picture. If the subject did not break the law then the arrest is unlawful and can be considered kidnapping in some states. This means the violator must have broken a law and needs to be apprehended. The downside to delegation is that if a lower ranking officer makes a mistake it goes all the way up the chain until it reaches the supervisor whose job it was in the first place. This power must never be taken advantage of.