Intentional Criminal Liability Management

Question: Discuss about the Intentional Criminal Liability Management. Answer: Under Irish law Assault will attract criminal liability one actually inflicts harm on another person through the application of force. Pursuant to section 2 of Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act (1997) an assault has been defined as an intentional or a reckless act where one applies force which causes an impact on another persons body. The bodily impact that has been caused must either be caused directly or indirectly. The second limb of the assault definition suggests that one will also be guilt of the offence of assault if he causes someone to reasonably believe that he will he likely to make an impact on the body of the other person using force. It bears noting that the expectation of the force must be immediate. For criminal liability to attach only one limb must be satisfied. Further under section 3(1) of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act (1997) a person will be held to be criminally liable for an assault that eventually caused harm to the other individual. It is instructive to note that if the person uses force but does not necessarily cause harm they will be liable to pay a fine which shall not exceed 1500 pounds or serve a term in imprisonment which shall not exceed 6 months or may be subjected to both fine and imprisonment (S 2(4) Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997)). If the assault caused harm the person will be criminally liable upon summary conviction to an imprisonment term which shall not exceed 12 months or a fine which shall not go beyond 1500 pounds or both (S 3(2b) Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997). Upon conviction the person will be liable to a imprisonment term of not more than 5 years. It is worth noting that the actus reus and mens rea element of a crime must be present to prove a crime of assault. The mens rea must be a general intent. In the case in point Michael punched Sean and therefore he has applied force directly against another person. In R v Thomas (1985) it was held that the degree of force used against the other person is immaterial. If the civil action is brought first the claimant must prove there was apprehension of an imminent attack on him (Dullaghan v Hillen, 1957). The defendant must have had the intention to cause the harm on the claimant. It is not necessary to show that there was contact or injured was suffered in a civil action for assault. The claimant must only show that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the attack was imminent (Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers, 1985).On the other hand, it may be easier for Sean to pursue a civil action against Michael if he is held guilty of the crime of assault. The causal link between the act and the harm caused will have already been determined by the criminal court. In criminal law the main goal is usually to punish the accused and the remedy is imprisonment or a fine. However, the chief goal of civil law is to put the claimant in the position they were in before the civil wrong had occurred. This is usually done by way of compensation. Sean can th erefore claim special damages in the civil court and this will be awarded based on the economic losses or expenses that he incurred. Therefore, Sean can claim to be compensated fro the medical expenses and the loss of income that due to the fact that the injury caused him not to attend his daily job where he is self employed. It is imperative to note that even though the court may declare that the defendant, Michael is entitled to pay the compensation most civil cases that are conducted immediately after a criminal conviction, defendants argue they are not able to pay the compensation. It may be advisable to only pursue a civil action for compensation although in this case the police had already taken the matter up for investigation and therefore a criminal case was bound to occur. It should be borne in mind that the burden of prof in a criminal case rests on the prosecution and not the complainant. However this is just the general rule but pursuant to section 29(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1977) where the accused has been found in possession of a drug, the burden of prof shifts to the defense (People (DPP) v. Byrne, 1998). In the case Sean, the prosecution will have the burden of proofing that the accused Michael is guilty of the act. The standard of proof that shall be applied in the criminal case by the prosecution is thus one which is beyond reasonable doubt. In the People (AG) v. Byrne (1974) the court affirmed that in a criminal case the jury must come to a conclusion after the case has ben proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the accused should be aware that he has been accorded the benefit doubt depending ion the evidence that is adduce in court. In a civil case the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to show that he apprehended an imminent at tack. The claimant has the burden of proving that the defendant had the intention to commit the act. The defendants duty will be merely that of defense and not a burden of proof in the strict sense. The burden of prof in this case cannot shift to the defendant. However, in a civil case the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. It will be the duty of Sean to prove that ion a balance of probability Michael committed the civil wrong and that he suffered harm therefore he is entitled to compensation. All in all it may be conceded that Sean has a stronger criminal case although he has to pursue a civil action for compensation due the medical expenses he may have incurred and the loss of income that was caused by the injury which made him stay at home References R v Thomas (1985) 81 Cr. App. R. 331 Dullaghan v Hillen [1957] IR Jur Rep 10. Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1985] 2 All ER The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Byrne [1998] 2 I.R. 417 The People (Attorney General) v Byrne[1974] IR 1 Misuse of Drugs Act (1977) Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1985] 2 All ER 1 Dullaghan v. Hillen [1957] IR Jur Rep 10. [35]. Non-Fatal Offences against the Person (1997 Act)