Question: three elements. Conduct, circumstances, and results.

Question:   

Raj, a
paramedic, walks through the park on his way home from work and sees David
lying on the floor shouting for help (having been stabbed). Raj is desperate to
get home as he is already late and is supposed to be taking his wife out for a
meal. He ignores David and goes home.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Was
Raj under an obligation to help David?

 

ACTUS REAS:

1.Briefly explain the meaning of the
term “Actus Reus”?(60 words) (Marks available:5)

 

 Actus Reas means guilty Act. It has three
elements. Conduct, circumstances, and results. Conduct may not be criminal Exp:
Theft, Perjury, Result the conduct must not be criminal but result of the
conduct may be Exp: Assualt, Battery. Generally, Actus Reas is a positive
Voluntary act, however, exceptions can be made such as Omission

 

2.What do we mean by the terms “omission” and “duty to act”? Please explain the law-fully in relevant cases.

(100
words) (Marks available: 10)

 

 An Omission is when a person is liable to for
failing to at when there is a duty. Omission can be categorised in to five
groups Contract where a contract of employment states duty, Statutory Duty
these are the acts of the parliament or statues, Relationship these are family
or responsibility, Chain of events where you start chain of events you have the
duty to act, Public offence where there is the duty to protect the public like
in Dytham(1979). The police officer watched a bouncer kick a man to his death.
It was held the offense of misconduct is a public offense can be committed by
an omission. The defendant was convicted. And in Noughton(2001) where a police
officer still had a duty to act when off duty

 

3.Applying the law from question 2, is
Raj under a legal duty to ensure David receives treatment? Explain your answer fully and refer back to the relevant cases you
have identified in question 2.

(200
words) (Marks available:20)

 

Raj
is a paramedic he owes David a duty of care under the contractual or public
office. Raj owes David a duty of care if he is at work as in R v Pittwood but
for Raj, it did not apply as he was off duty. However, Raj is a paramedic he is
under the duty to take care of David as stated In Noughton(2001)where it is
said that a police officer is never of duty and Dytham(1979) where the police
officer watched a bouncer kick a man to death. The offense of misconduct is a
public offense can be committed by an omission. This states that public
officials are never off duty, however, considering this a paramedic is same as
a police officer.

Yes
paramedics are same as police officer cause they are specially trained and are
paid by the public to serve them. Although they do not take the same oath as
policemen.

No
because he requires special equipment to do so although at current moment he
does not require the equipments to take care of the man but h might require the
oxygen mask and etc. Unlike policemen, they are not trained under the same the
situation what if the killer is hiding somewhere so he is not going to risk his
own life

But
a public official is it necessary for the paramedic to stay on a 24-hour duty
because they also have there own life and family which cannot be fully be given
to the public.

MENS REA:

4.Briefly explain the meaning of the
term “Mens Rea”?

(60
words) (Marks available:5)

 

 Mens Rea means guilty mind where the mental
element is also involved. There are different types of Mens Rea. Intent,
Recklessness where they both foresaw the risk and are both subjective.
Negligence shows whether the reasonable men would have done it or not

 

5.Explain, using cases, the meaning of “Direct Intention”. (120 words) (Marks available:10)

 

Direct
Intention is where the defendant directly intended to do something which formed
as a part of the act. It does not require premeditation or planning but must be
at the present time. It also not affected by the outcomes of the failure and
success. This is best shown in the case of R v Mohan(1975) where the intention
was to cause bodily harm by driving the car in to the police officer

 

6.Explain, using cases, the meaning of ‘Oblique Intention’.(120 words)(Marks available 10)

 

The
oblique intention is where the offense of element is not defendants main
purpose or aim. The defendant obliquely intents the consequence where the actus
reas element is virtually certain to arise. As it can be shown in the case of
Nedrick(1986) in this a child a dies In the house on fire where the defendant
set the house on fire and was highly probable that it would cause some serious
harm but did not intend it. Also in Woolin(1999) where the defendant killed his
3 month old child by throwing him on hard surface but not with a intention to
kill. The murder conviction was held to manslaughter. Because there was a
misdirection which expanded the mens rea of murder and therefore the murder
conviction was unsafe.

 

7.Explain, using cases, the meaning of
“Recklessness”.(120words)

(Marks available:10)

 

The
definition of Recklessness is that D foresaw the risk of the consequence, but
carries on regardless. Recklessness used to be established by the objective
test R V Cladwell(1982)which stated would a reasonable person would have done
it. But objective test was later abolished by the case R v G(2003). Since then
recklessness is proven by the subjective test that was set out in R v
Cunnigham(1957) where the defendant must foresaw the risk. If the defendant
foresaw the risk and continue to work he will be convicted.

 

8.Explain as clearly as you can the difference between “Oblique Intention” and “Recklessness.”
(120 words) (Marks available:10)

 

The
difference between Oblique intention and Recklessness is that with oblique
intention the defendant must have foreseen the consequence as virtually
uncertain Nedrick(1986) and in recklessness is that it is a mere foresight of
risk R v Cunnigham(1957). Oblique intention requires a higher level of
inescapable consequence of achieving the desired result, even if the
consequence itself is not desired whereas recklessness is a less culpable
merely based on risk-taking

 

9.Without reference to any specific
offences, what ‘type’ of Mens Rea
(Direct Intention, Oblique Intention or    
Recklessness) do you think best fits Raj in     relation to the death of David? Explain
your answer fully, making reference to the definitions you have provided in
questions 5, 6 and 7. (200 words) (Marks available:20)

 

Looking
at the facts of the case, Raj was reckless as he was in a hurry to get back
home and ignores David. Raj is aware of the risk of David being harmed but he
continues to walk regardless. We are not advised that Raj being a paramedic
recognize the risk on David but walks past him instead this shows his mens rea
and regardless of this goes home

Raj
did not have direct intention as his main purpose was to get back home and as
it was not his purpose to leave David behind and let him bleed to death cause
his main purpose was to get home

He
also didn’t see David death as the virtually uncertain cause is he virtually
certain that leaving him may cause him harm. Maybe if he is a paramedic he
would have thought of the consequence of leaving David behind bleeding,
however, did he knew the extent of his injuries did he observe the situation
properly he went uninformed of this