Civil Liability and Self-Defence Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Civil Liability and Self-Defence - Case theatre of operations ExampleOn the basis of the attendant facts, it would appear on the surface that Alex committed a execrable act. Incidentally, this is not so in the case at bar. To prove a crime, deuce fragments are ask to be present. Firstly, there must be the external or criminal act, called actus reus in Latin. The second element is the leering intent on the come apart of the actor, the Latin mens rea. In order to obtain a conviction, these two essential requisites must be established with proof beyond reasonable doubt.1When Alex returned from her coffee break and demonstrate stunned Bill taking away a com throw uper and trying to get another one, what was on her mind was that Bill, whom she does not know, was stealing the properties of her temporary employer, Pumps and Pipes, whose right or interest she would naturally try to protect. Indeed, Alex essay to so do by hitting Bill in the stomach. Otherwise stated, there was no m alicious intent or criminal design on her part to unjustifiably or unreasonably private road injury to Bill when she executed the assault. There was therefore no mens rea as there was no decided mind-set and correct objective to effect and perform a criminal act on the part of Alex against Bill and this is particularly true in the case at bar when she did not mean every harm more severe than what was only needed to avert what she believed was the illegal taking of the computers.The honest charge and apprehension of Alex were demonstrated by h... However, the question now is whether or not the act of defending and the consequence of it were reasonable and reassert. In the case of Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police 2008 2 W.L.R. 975, one subject which was resolved by the House of Lords was the question as to whether or not a defendant back end claim self-defence when he had mistakenly albeit honestly perceived that it was necessary to defend himself against a clear dang er even if the wrong belief was not reasonable.2 The decision in that suit enunciated that in a civil action for battery, as in the present situation, the burden of proof is on the defendant to convincingly show that not only was his belief honest but that it was reasonable. Under the circumstances, Alex does not qualify to put up self-defence as far as concerning the civil aspect. While she may be justified in assessing that Bill would commit an offence against the property right of her intermittent employer, the force or stylus of defending that right did not appear reasonable. She could have just instead run away immediately, locked the doors and called out for assistance like what she did without unnecessarily hitting Bill. The events in the instant case find relevance in one not so old development. There had been moves to challenge and or to make clear the lawfulness on self defence. A farmer was adjudged to suffer the penalty of a life sentence interest his alleged murder o f a teen-aged intruder. No less than a police authority head rallied for a demand to put greater clarity in the law on self defence. It was charged that lawmakers must address this concern in order to give householders what real and specific right did they have