AskSia

Plus

Dave and Andy belong to the same gang. One night, in retaliation for an attack o...

May 3, 2024

Dave and Andy belong to the same gang. One night, in retaliation for an attack on their patch, Dave and Andy go out in search of a rival gang member (Fred) in order to kill him. However, seeing the two coming, and realising their intention, Fred grabs Andy and attempts to use him as a human shield to avoid attack. Dave does not want to harm Andy, but realises that if he shoots him there is a small chance that the bullet will pass through his body and kill Fred. Dave even thinks there is a chance that Andy could survive. Dave shoots, killing Andy and Fred. As Dave returns home, he finds his step-son (Pete) dead. Although Pete had lived alone with Dave for many years, the two had begun to hate each other. In recent months, this culminated in Pete refusing to eat and Dave refusing to feed him. Following medical investigation, it was found that Pete’s death resulted from starvation. Dave was aware that Pete could die in this way and is glad he is dead. Discuss Dave’s potential liability for murder.

Let's break down the situation with Dave step by step. First, in the case of Andy's death, Dave did not intend to harm him but took the risk of shooting him to potentially save Fred. This could be considered as involuntary manslaughter due to reckless behavior. Secondly, in the case of Pete's death, Dave's actions of refusing to feed him ultimately led to Pete's death from starvation. This could be considered as murder or at least manslaughter due to neglect and intentional harm. In conclusion, Dave could potentially be liable for both murder and manslaughter depending on the legal interpretation of the circumstances. It would be important to consider all the evidence and circumstances in a court of law.

answer the following on the basis of offences against a person 1861 : One Sunday afternoon, David, his friend Chris and Chris’s girlfriend Nikki decide to go camping in the countryside. On the train there, they meet Jason. Although the group have never met Jason before, he and David seem to hit it off and so David invites Jason to join them. When evening falls, David invites Jason to share his tent and they have unprotected sexual intercourse. David fails to tell Jason that he is HIV positive. Meanwhile, Chris and Nikki decide to spend the night in a nearby hay barn. Nikki finds an old branding iron and asks Chris if he would like her to brand her date of birth onto his back. He agrees and she brands him. After this, with Nikki’s consent, Chris carefully inserts some sterilised needles that he has brought with him through each of Nikki’s nipples. Both find this sexually stimulating. Discuss any potential criminal liability arising.

Based on the scenario you provided, there are several potential offenses against a person under the 1861 law that could be applicable. 1. In the case of David failing to disclose his HIV positive status before having unprotected sexual intercourse with Jason, this could potentially fall under the offense of grievous bodily harm under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This is because by not disclosing his HIV status, David put Jason at risk of contracting a serious illness. 2. Regarding Chris allowing Nikki to brand his back with a branding iron and inserting sterilized needles through Nikki's nipples with her consent, these actions could potentially be considered as assault under the 1861 law. Even though there was consent involved, the nature of these activities could still be seen as causing harm or injury to another person. It is important to note that the specific legal implications would depend on various factors, including the exact circumstances of the actions and the laws in the jurisdiction where the camping trip took place.