Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Assault causeing harm

  • 18-12-2008 10:48am
    #1
    golum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 70 ✭✭


    Anybody know if this is an offence of strict liability?


Comments

  • #2
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,581 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    I should hope not.


  • #3
    dats_right
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭dats_right


    The mens rea for assualt is intention or recklessness.


  • #4
    page1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 219 ✭✭page1


    Assault causing harm is a result offence. ie it must be proved that the accused's conduct caused a particular result.
    Question is whether or not a mens rea must be proved in respect of causing harm, did the accused intentionally or recklessly cause the harm or is the offence one of strict liability - must it just be shown that the assault in fact caused the harm.

    It is presumed that every element of the actus reus requires a corresponding mens rea but such a presumption may be rebutted.

    Section 3 of 1997 act stated " a person who assaults another causing him ...harm shall be guilty of an offence.

    Section 4 the offence of causing serious harm states " a person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another ...."

    This shows a requirement for intent to cause harm under section 4 but no similar requirement stipulated for s3 indicating that assault causing harm is an offence of strict liability.


  • #5
    Jumpy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    For the uneducated - what is "strict liability" ?


  • #6
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    Jumpy wrote: »
    For the uneducated - what is "strict liability" ?


    Once a particular "strict liability" type event occurs liability is presumed to attach.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,579 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Jumpy wrote: »
    For the uneducated - what is "strict liability" ?
    If you did it, you will be held strictly liable for your actions and you have a much reduced right to plead innocence. There is no requirement to be of a guilty mind. So claims of "I thought she was older" traditionally haven't got people very far and neither will "I didn't know the speed limit".


  • #8
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    Contrary to what page1 has said, assault causing harm is not a strict liability crime. The requisite mens rea in intention or recklessness. Section 3 of the 1997 Act states that "A person who assaults another causing him or her harm shall be guilty of an offence." There is no mention of any mens rea requirement there, but assault is a necessary element of the crime. Assault is defined in section 2 of the 1997 Act which states that "A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly [yada yada yada]".

    Therefore, if you do not act intentionally or recklessly, there has been no assault and therefore no assault causing harm.


Advertisement