



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
An overview of the legal concepts of assault and reckless conduct in scots law. It covers the actus reus and mens rea of assault, as well as defenses such as reasonable chastisement and consent. The document also discusses various non-intentional injury and endangerment offenses, including culpable and reckless endangerment of the public, culpable and reckless discharge of firearms, culpable and reckless injury, and culpable and reckless supply of harmful substances. The terminology used in this area of law is not always well-established, and the document highlights the importance of understanding the nuances in the classification of these offenses. The document could be useful for university students studying criminal law, particularly those interested in the unique aspects of scots law.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 6
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
ASSAULT and RECKLESS CONDUCT Reading: Gane, Stoddart and Chalmers ( th edn), pp 284-327; 354- Jones and Christie (5th^ edn), pp 184-197; 202-
1. Offences Against the Person and Nomen Juris In Scots law, when a person is charged with a criminal offence, it has not been necessary since the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887 to provide the name of that offence ( nomen juris ) in the indictment or complaint. Instead, it is enough to allege facts that constitute a criminal offence, whatever that offence might be. In most cases, the name of the offence charged is firmly established and clear from the wording of the charge. Take, for example, the culpable homicide charge in Lord Advocate's Reference (No 1 of 1994) 1996 JC 76: "[O]n 24th September 1993 in a car park at Queen Street, Broughty Ferry, Dundee, at 8 Holyrood Street, Carnoustie, and elsewhere in Broughty Ferry, Dundee and Carnoustie, you did unlawfully supply a controlled and potentially lethal drug, namely amphetamine, a Class B drug specified in Part II of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to Elaine Curry, 23 Ogilvie Court, Broughty Ferry, Dundee, Pamela Jill Kerr, now deceased, Anthony Vincent Hughes, 7 Mackenzie Street, Carnoustie, Adrian Ellis Watson, 8 Holyrood Street, Carnoustie, and Kerry Joyce Chalmers, then residing at 17 James Street, Arbroath, in a lethal quantity and said Elaine Curry, Kerry Joyce Chalmers, Pamela Jill Kerr, Adrian Ellis Watson and Anthony Vincent Hughes ingested said amphetamine to the danger of their health, safety and lives and said Pamela Jill Kerr died as a consequence of ingesting said amphetamine and you did kill her." This charge does not use the words 'culpable homicide' at any point, but it is exactly how you would expect a charge of that nature to be framed (the words 'and you did kill her' are key). There is no confusion of terminology in practice. But with some of the offences covered in these lectures, the terminology is not well-established, nor 1
is it clear from the wording of the charge exactly what the offence should be called. Consider, for example, the charge in HM Adv v Kelly (2001, unreported – see below): "…knowing or believing that you were infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and knowing that said Virus could be transmitted to another during sexual intercourse, on various occasions between 1 January 1994 and 28th March 1994, both dates inclusive, at [locus] you did pretend to [A.C.] that you were not infected with said Virus and did culpably and recklessly and with total disregard for the consequences repeatedly engage in sexual intercourse with her whereby she became infected with said Virus to her permanent impairment, to the danger of her health and to the danger of her life." What is the offence charged here actually called? It is variously referred to as 'culpable and reckless conduct', 'reckless conduct', 'reckless injury' or even 'causing real injury'. These terms are not synonymous: for example, 'culpable and reckless conduct' is a broad term which covers both recklessly injuring and recklessly endangering persons; 'reckless injury' is obviously restricted to the first of those cases. You should be aware, therefore, that the terminology used in this part of the course is not firmly established in law and that different textbooks and cases may not always classify the offences concerned in the same way as we do here. Note further that in this context the law also uses a 'preventive' approach by prohibiting the carrying of offensive weapons in certain circumstances. See Criminal Law Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1995, ss 47-49B; Frame v Kennedy 2008 JC 317; Crowe v Waugh 1999 JC 292.
2. Assault A. Actus reus The classic definition of the actus reus of assault is an 'attack' on another. The word 'attack' paradigmatically suggests a direct use of violence towards the victim. However, the term is understood broadly so that it also includes both indirectly causing injury and acts creating fear of injury. Examples of attacks include: 2
a number of considerations to which courts should have regard in determining whether chastisement is reasonable. Note that conduct involving any of the following is regarded as per se unreasonable (s. 51(3)): Blows to the head Shaking Use of an implement This defence is no longer available to schoolteachers: Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000, s. 16. (ii) Consent One cannot lawfully consent to settle one's disputes by means of a fight: * Smart v HM Adv 1975 JC 30. Smart suggests that consent is generally not a valid defence to assault. But what about cases where the 'victim' of the assault positively wants to be 'injured'? Compare the approach of the House of Lords to this question in * R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212, covered in previous lectures and tutorials. This approach has been ruled compatible with respect for private life under article 8 of the ECHR: Laskey et al v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 39. (Note that absence of consent is a necessary element of some other criminal offences, e.g. sexual offences. See the forthcoming lectures on sexual offences on how consent is understood in that context.)
3. Non-Intentional Injury and Endangerment A number of offences cover acts that cause or risk causing injury in the absence of the evil intent required for assault. As was noted previously, the precise names and boundaries of these offences are uncertain. However, they include the following: A. Culpable and reckless endangering of the lieges This is a long-established offence in the common law. 'The lieges' simply means the public or a section of the public. See e.g.: 4
MacPhail v Clark 1983 SLT (Sh Ct) 37 Normand v Robinson 1993 SCCR 1119 Robertson v Klos 2006 SCCR 52 The scope of this offence has often been considered in the context of cases where suspects fail to disclose dangerous objects to the police prior to being searched. See e.g.: Normand v Morrison 1993 SCCR 207 Kimmins v Normand 1993 SLT 1260 Donaldson v Normand 1997 SCCR 351 Mallin v Clark 2002 SLT 1202 B. Culpable and reckless discharge of firearms This is at least a species of culpable and reckless endangerment. It is sometimes considered to be a separate offence. Gizzi v Tudhope 1983 SLT 214 Campbell v HM Adv 1997 SCCR 269