Indirect Application of Force in Battery

Actus Reus and Mens Rea of Battery

Battery involves the unlawful use of force against other people. In battery, the actus reus is simply using the force. The case of R v Ireland established the definition of battery. Lord Steyn he termed it is as the application of force unlawfully by defendants upon victims. It is worth noting that in such cases, defendants must not necessarily have injured their victims directly so as to be convicted. Rather, applying such force indirectly, for example, in those situations where the touching is a result of the actions of the defendant, they become liable for battery. In the case of DPP v K (a minor), a schoolboy had carried out acid from a science lesson. They then placed the acid in a hot air hand drier in the boys` washrooms. Later on, another pupil walked into the washroom, and when using the hand drier, the acid squirted onto his face which gave him permanent scars. In the final ruling of the case, it was held that the application of force needed not to have been applied directly. The defendants’ action of placing the acid in the hand drier made him liable.

In the case of Faulkner v Tablot, unlawful physical force was extensively defined by Lord Lane CJ as any reckless or intentional touching of other persons without their consent and without an excuse that would be deemed lawful. Such touching needs not to be aggressive, rude or hostile.

In those circumstances where the excuse provided by the defendant for committing the battery is lawful, for example, in those instances where they were reasonably punishing a child, or where they acted in self-defense to prevent a crime or where the battery was committed with the consent of the victim, the battery cannot be sustained. In the case of Donnelly v Jackman, a police officer had tapped the shoulder of a defendant with the intent of gaining his attention, and in reaction, the defendant assaulted the officer. He was consequently charged with assault of an officer who was in his course of duty. According to the defendant, the officer’s actions qualified for battery. The judge in the case held that officer`s actions did not amount to battery.

With regards to the mens rea for battery, for convictions, negligence usually is sufficient. What that implies is that in the event the acts of battery of the defendant were intentional; Obviously, they could be convicted. Additionally, even in such situations where the defendant acted in a situation where it was evident that their conduct would lead to touching the victim in a manner that would constitute battery, such defendants could be convicted of criminal battery. That is despite the fact that the defendant had no intentions of committing the crime. At times, the victim's consent could be used as a defense against charges of battery. However, such defences are not allowable whenever such battery brings about or was intended to bring about bodily injury. Just as with other crimes, the degree of battery tends to vary between different jurisdictions and is divided into two categories; aggravated battery and simple battery. Simple battery is considered as a misdemeanor and aggravated battery is defined as such battery that is committed with the intentions of killing, committed with weapons that are deadly or that brings about serious harm to victims.

Murder

For a killing to amount to a murder, it is always necessary that the actions or omissions of the defendant at the time of the death of a victim were the operating and most substantial with no new acts breaking in, in a way that would break causations chain. In English law, murder is defined as the intent to cause grievous injury or harm that is combined with the happening of a death.

John hit Jasvinder with a baseball bat, and she was taken to hospital where she remained in a vegetative state for two months when her family decided to withdraw her life support which led to her death. John cannot be held liable for the death of Jasvinder but can be held liable for battery. The killing of a human being in the peace of the queen forms the actus reus of murder. The actions of John did not directly lead to the death of Jasvinder; it is her family that decided to withdraw her life support. Unlawful killing either comes about as a result of an omission or action.

Jasvinder was also not liable for the death of Jane. Even though she had battered her, she was actually recovering well until a junior doctor intravenously administered a drug instead of doing it inter-muscularly which led Jayne to have a massive heart failure which subsequently led to her death.

Intent

Intent, in criminal law, is a subjective state of mind that is required to accompany certain crimes` acts if they have to constitute violations. In the case of R v Moloney, the conviction of the defendant for murder was substituted for manslaughter. The defendant had shot his stepfather leading to his death. Evidence was produced of the presence of a relationship between the two. The shooting happened during the celebrations for the wedding anniversary of the defendant’s grandparents. The two were left drinking after the rest of the family retired to sleep. The defendant confided in his stepfather that he had thought of leaving the army, and his stepfather was not happy with these news, and that led him to berate the defendant. The stepfather went ahead and dared his son that he was capable of loading and shooting a gun in quicker succession than him. The defendant took the challenge and was the first one to load his gun, the stepfather, further dared him to pull the trigger, in his drunken state, the defendant pulled the trigger as he did not believe that the gun was aimed at the stepfather.

A person is considered to have had consequences intent if they foresaw that their acts or omissions would lead to a certain consequence and if they desired a certain action to happen. In instances when these two components are proved to have been present in the mind of the accused, the most serious level of culpability that justifies the most serious levels of punishment is achieved.

Intention could either be divided into specific and basic intent and direct and oblique intent. Most cases tend to be straightforward and involve direct intent. Direct intent comes about in those situations whereby defendants embark on courses of conducts to bring about results which actually happen. For example in the event that B had the intentions of killing her husband and she got a knife from her kitchen, sharpened it and went ahead to stab her husband, her conduct would achieve the results desired.

Oblique intents tend to be more complex in nature. Such intent is said to exist in such instances where defendants embark on courses of conduct to bring the results they so desire, knowing too well that the consequences of their actions will end up bringing up other results. For example, when B having the intentions of killing her husband and going on ahead to place a bomb on an airplane the husband is traveling on. Such actions would lead to the death of the aeroplanes crew members and other passengers even though those deaths were not the initial intentions of B. In such situations, B is no less culpable in killing the other passengers and the crew than in killing her husband as she knows too well that her actions will bring about death.

Specific intent referred to the defendant’s state of mind when they committed a crime. Specific intent requires more than just doing unlawful acts in that it also requires doing of it with additional subjective objectives and intentions. Words like wilfully, purposely, knowingly and intentionally are used to indicate specific intent crimes. If someone did not act with the intent required, they could not be convicted of specific crimes. Examples of specific intent crimes are burglary, embezzlement, forgery among many others. In those offenses that require basic intent, the mens rea required is no more than the reckless or intentional commission of actus reus. The actor is required to either have known (had intentions) or closed their minds to the risks that their actions would bring about harm for the victim. The crime of battery is one good example of a crime that only requires basic intent that the actor would have known or knew that their actions would lead to harmful contacts with their victims.

Contemporaneity of actus reus and mens rea

Contemporaneity involves the apparent need of proving guilty actions, actus reus occurrence and also those of guilty mind, mens rea simultaneously except for those crimes whose liability is strict. What this implies is that if no occurrence is held by the actus reus in the mens rea`s point of time, then no crime can be said to have been committed.

Take, for example, a driver who hits a pedestrian accidentally and finds out that the person they hit is a person they consider an enemy and takes pleasure in the action of hitting the pedestrian. Conventionally, no crime has been committed. With the actus reus having been completed, there exists no rule of ratification applicable under criminal law. Here, there is no crime that has been committed as the guilty action, and the guilty mind does not coincide. In the case of Edwards v Ddin, the defendant had driven into a petrol station and had his tank filled with petrol. He then requested the attendant to have a look at the car`s water and oil. The attendant oiled his hands and as he was cleaning them, the defendant, without paying, drove off. Because under contract law the petrol had passed on to the defendant when he had his tank filled, it was held that the defendants’ actions could not amount to any crime. The defendant drove off without paying when the attendant was washing his hands. It was held that the actions of the driver did not amount to any crime as under contract law the petrol had passed on to the defendant when it was filled into his petrol tank. When the intentions not to pay for the petrol were being formed, the petrol already belonged to him. Looking for further insights on Exploring Ted Bundy? Click here.

When attempting to speak to Jasvinder`s family, John runs after them as they drive away expecting that will stop. However, the driver does not see him, and he is run down and subsequently dies.

There are instances when the absence of temporal coincidence between actus reus and mens rea faces courts and from the analysis that the required coincidence was satisfied in either form or substance, go ahead and impose liability. There are two ways in which such situations may arise. For example, as was in the case of R v Miller, the initial casual responsibility may be blameless and that may be followed by failure that is culpable that is aimed at averting and mitigating the initial conducts consequences. On the other hand, as in R v Le Brun, conduct may exist with the charged offence`s mens rea, but to a casual effect that is not relevant, followed by a causing of the actus reus of the offence that is not culpable. In both categories of case blameless, it is contended that playing a prominent role in the imposition of the offences that are very serious is the casual agency.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Reflective essay on valued based health care and nursing service .