When investigating the grounds on which a defendant can be found criminally liable for an offence, the courts often apply the principle of actus reus guilty act. Unlike other areas of law, criminal law requires that the accused acted with a guilty state of mind. Fundamentally, a person cannot be convicted of an offence if he had made a genuine mistake. Application of mens rea in the courts has nothing to do with notions of evil,moral fault or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act. Instead it refers to the state of mind expressly required by the definition of the offence charged. Typical instances of mens rea include the accused intended to cause the harm, or he/she foresaw that his/her actions may cause harm to the victim, or the offender was negligent, or the accused intended to commit some criminal offence, but the result was more serious than expected.

Section 20 of the offences against the person act reads '' whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict grevious bodily harm upon any other person. To imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.'' in order for the court to convict barry contrary to section 20, the actus reus of the offence must be established unlawful wounding or unlawful infliction of grevious bodily harm. Therefore, a scratch which does not break the inner skin, or an internal rupture of blood vessels, does not qualify as a wound.

Elements of Art - Sketchbook Assignments

In reference to the case on hand, if the court decide that peter's skin has broken as a result of the laser treatment carried out by barry, the defendant may be held liable. Furthermore, the nature of the defendant's act agrees with the material words ''whosoever shall unlawfully'', as he lied to peter that he was a qualified doctor, when in fact he was a medical student. On the other hand, if it is found that peter's side effect does not amount to a wound, although barry's act still remains unlawful, he cannot be found liable under section 20 of the 1861 act.

The defendant shot the victim with an air pistol causing bruising and rupturing internal bleeding. Secondly, the remaining actus reus of the offence is the unlawful infliction of grevious bodily harm. The word 'inflict' implies that the consequence of the defendant's act is something that the victim will find unpleasant or harmful. Therefore, the critical question: does peter's injury reflect ''really serious harm''. Furthermore, over the past century, the law has stated that the words ''wound'' and ''inflict grevious bodily harm'' require evidence of an assault. An assault is committed when the accused intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. In relation to the present case, the defendant may be acquitted under section 20 of the 1861 act, because he did not cause the respondent to fear immediate unlawful force to his body, as the respondent consented to the defendant's practice.

Emerson College Application Essays

The defendant was convicted of inflicting grevious bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on his wife, having infected her with venereal disease during consensual intercourse. In response the prosecution argued that the wife would not have consented if she had been aware of her husband's condition. The court allowed the appeal on the basis that consent was not obtained by fraud and so there was no assault. Similarly, in the present case, barry did not obtain peter's consent by making him apprehend immediate violence to his body.

Essay on Role of Computers In Our Life

In contrast with the arguement expressed above, there have been cases where the establishment of assault has been ignored. This was confirmed by lord roskill in reference to the australian case of salisbury 1976 vr 452 '' i am content to accept. That there can be an infliction of grevious bodily harm contrary to section 20 without an assault being committed.'' therefore, if the respondent's bodily harm is recognised as 'grevious', he may be liable. The facts of the case reveal that as a result of the laser treatment the victim's skin became inflamed and he suffered severe pain for two months.