Prosecute Billy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Prosecute he-goat - Essay ExampleAny civil claims stomachnot be brought up whilst the case is in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is strictly a criminal prosecution service. To begin with, it is necessary to see that Billys actions caused Hilda to suffer defame to an extent that she had to be taken to the hospital. These circumstances make it dupe that the harm suffered by Hilda was aggravated in nature. She has been hit on the compass point by a president leg and is in a condition that she is not allowed visitors. These evidential circumstances bring the harm caused into the ambit of a heinous nature which is governed by section 20 of the OAPA 1861. particle 20 of the OAPA states that Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous corporeal harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for five years. (Jacqueline, Chris 2011, pp 113-116) It is clear from the section that a few elements will need to be proven against Billy before a case under Section 20 can be made out. The first of these has to be the actus reus. For the purposes of Section 20, the actus reus, or the guilty act, has to consist of knifelike which amounts to grievous bodily harm and has been inflicted by the defendant. The requirement of wounding as defined in the case of Moriarty v Brookes ((1834) 6 C&P 684) states that the continuity of the skin as a whole should be disrupted. It is present to be noted that if the blow of the chair which was enough to land Hilda in a hospital whereby she was unavailable for visitors is a sign that the damage caused to her head would head have caused blood to flow, as might any such act where the impact is so harsh do so. As also mentioned in Section 20, the requirement that a weapon or instrument may have been used also stands proved as Billy used a chair to inflict harm onto Hildas person. More essentially, Hilda must prov e that the harm caused was of the category of grievous bodily harm as set out in the OAPA 1861. It has been roughly defined as harm which earnestly interferes with health or comfort (Ashman, 1858 1 FF 88). Judges have also later refined this definition further in cases like Smith ((1961) AC 290), that the definition need not be confined in any sense the jury and taste alike must take into account the totality of injuries caused and must consider liability for it accordingly. Here, it is clear that a woman who had to be admitted to the hospital had indeed suffered serious harm which cannot be taken lightly and is does qualify fully the requirement laid down in Section 20 of the annoying of grievous bodily harm. Further, it is necessary to prove that Billy has indeed inflicted the injuries on Hilda for which he is to be held liable. It is expressly believed that in legal terms, infliction takes place when either the defendant now and violently inflicts the injury by assaulting the victim or, more widely, where he does something which indirectly applies force on the victims person to cause injury. Under this definition, Billy has clearly been direct and violent in using force against Hilda as he hit her on the head with a chair leg and hence, infliction also