Section 18 Of Offences Against The Person Act 1861

1. What is the actus reus of Section 18?

Assault with intent to rob

- wounding
- causing grievous bodily harm.

Reckless endangerment

Common assault

Section 18 requires the actus reus of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm, which distinguishes it from the other options listed. Assault with intent to rob involves a different criminal intent, common assault is a lesser offense, and reckless endangerment does not require the specific harm mentioned in Section 18.

Explanation

Section 18 requires the actus reus of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm, which distinguishes it from the other options listed. Assault with intent to rob involves a different criminal intent, common assault is a lesser offense, and reckless endangerment does not require the specific harm mentioned in Section 18.

2. For the mens rea of Section 18, the defendant must be proved to have intended to...

- cause a minor injury or discomfort.

- deceive or defraud others.

- commit theft or burglary.

- do some grievous bodily harm; or
- resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person.

Section 18 of the law requires the defendant to have intended to cause grievous bodily harm or resist/prevent lawful apprehension or detainer of any person. The incorrect answers do not align with the specific mens rea requirements of Section 18.

Explanation

Section 18 of the law requires the defendant to have intended to cause grievous bodily harm or resist/prevent lawful apprehension or detainer of any person. The incorrect answers do not align with the specific mens rea requirements of Section 18.

3. Section 18 is a 'specific intent crime', what does this mean?

It means the crime is only applicable to juveniles.

It means the crime is not punishable by law.

It means the crime can be committed accidentally.

That intention must be proved, so recklessness is not sufficient for the mens rea.

A 'specific intent crime' requires proof of intention, meaning recklessness or accidental actions are not enough to establish the mens rea.

Explanation

A 'specific intent crime' requires proof of intention, meaning recklessness or accidental actions are not enough to establish the mens rea.

4. Which cases are considered the leading cases on foresight of consequences, according to the meaning of intention?

- Johnson 1976 - Anderson 1988 - Wilson 2001

- Maloney 1985
- Nedrick 1986
- Woollin 1998

- Smith 1978 - Jones 1995 - Brown 2002

- Taylor 1980 - Clark 1991 - White 2005

The correct answer lists the cases that are commonly referred to as the leading cases on foresight of consequences in relation to the meaning of intention. The incorrect answers do not align with the established and recognized leading cases in this context.

Explanation

The correct answer lists the cases that are commonly referred to as the leading cases on foresight of consequences in relation to the meaning of intention. The incorrect answers do not align with the established and recognized leading cases in this context.

5. What is the meaning of intention regarding section 18?

That foresight of consequences is not intention, it is only evidence from which intention can be inferred and intention cannot be found unless the harm caused was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's action and the def. realised this was so.

Intention is present whenever harm is caused by the defendant's actions.

Intention is solely based on the foresight of consequences.

Intention can be inferred if the defendant did not realize the harm caused by their actions.

The correct answer explains that intention cannot be solely based on foresight of consequences. It also highlights the importance of the harm being a virtual certainty and the defendant realizing this fact in order for intention to be established.

Explanation

The correct answer explains that intention cannot be solely based on foresight of consequences. It also highlights the importance of the harm being a virtual certainty and the defendant realizing this fact in order for intention to be established.

6. What must prosecution prove when the defendant is trying to resist or prevent arrest or detention?

He was coerced or pressured by another individual to resist or prevent arrest.

He was acting in self-defense to protect himself from harm.

That he had specific intention to resist or prevent arrest and that whether he was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a wound or injury.

He was unaware of law enforcement's presence during the incident.

In cases where a defendant is trying to resist or prevent arrest or detention, the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant had specific intention to resist or prevent arrest and was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a wound or injury. The incorrect answers provided do not align with the legal requirements for proving resistance or prevention of arrest.

Explanation

In cases where a defendant is trying to resist or prevent arrest or detention, the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant had specific intention to resist or prevent arrest and was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a wound or injury. The incorrect answers provided do not align with the legal requirements for proving resistance or prevention of arrest.

7. In what case was the decision made in Morrison 1989?

Johnson 2001

Morrison 1989

Smith 1995

Brown 1976

The correct answer is Morrison 1989, as this case specifically determined the outcome referenced in the question.

Explanation

The correct answer is Morrison 1989, as this case specifically determined the outcome referenced in the question.