CRIMINAL LAW Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

CRIMINAL LAW - Essay Example Rachel would win the challenge if she did not move her foot. Rachel accepted the challenge. The game started and Charlie was the first to throw a knife which hit Rachel’s ankle resulting in a deep cut and started bleeding. Rachel shouted at Charlie that she would get back to her, if she wasn’t in much pain. Seeing what had happened, Monica shouted to Charlie wondering whether she was crazy. Monica then lamented that she could not believe that Charlie had cut Rachel’s foot and asked whether it was because she hated her since she used to date Ross who still loves her. These comments infuriated Charlie, who grabbed the pair of scissors lying on the table and cut a large chunk of Monica’s hair. Charlie raised her hand again holding the scissors and Monica thought that she was going to cut her again, and so she rushed out of the house. On her way out, Monica met Joey who had heard the commotion and had come to check what was going on. Bumping onto Joey, Monica fell on the floor dislocation the right wrist which she had previously injured a day earlier while playing tennis. Rachel grabbed the frying pan and tried to hit Charlie at the time Joey was entering the apartment. Rachel missed Charlie and instead hit Joey fracturing his nose. In this case, the facts are that, Rachel was aware of the risk and danger she was putting herself into when she agreed to take the challenge that allowed Charlie and Monica to throw knives near her foot. Charlie threw a knife that cut Rachel’s foot resulting in bleeding; this was not intentional but an accident. As a result of infuriation, Charlie cut off a big chunk of Monica’s hair, this was not an accident, and it was intentional. Monica dislocating her arm as a result of bumping onto Joey was purely an accident. Rachel hitting Joey’s nose with a frying pan and fracturing it was not intentional. Based on the facts of this case, the question that arises is what criminal liabilities for the said parties in this case are. Parties Criminal Liability It is very clear, from the facts extrapolated above; the issues of Grievous Bodily Harm, Accidents, and Transferred Malice in relation to injuries are significant to these parties’ liabilities. Neither Rachel, Joey nor Monica, did anything wrong. The harm caused to Rachel by Charlie, the deep cut in Rachel’s foot, is considered involuntary. The potential criminal liability that faces Charlie is the Grievous Bodily Harm statute under section 18 of the 1861 Act, Offences against the Person. According the external elements of the offence-actus reus-a defendant must unlawfully cause any grievous bodily harm or wound1. The deep cut on Rachel’s foot caused by Charlie may constitute a grievous bodily harm or wound, under the rule found in Eisenhower, the continuity of the whole skin be cut rule2. The deep cut on Rachel’s foot caused by Charlie can also be explained under really serious bodily harm as seen in the case DPP v Smith3, but would, however, be up to the jury. According to the mens rea4, for such a liability to accrue, there is a requirement that an act needs to be malicious and with intent. Charlie would most probably fall under section 18 of the 1861 Act, Offences against the Person, which does need intent or malice5. It may be argued that cutting someone’