Likely charge (hypothetical)

Corruptable

The scenario, primarily involving Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person:

Albert has been involved in a lengthy court battle with another party, but lost the action, and Albert now blames his solicitor Paul for the loss of the case. He has made a series of abusive phone calls to Paul's home and office phone. In one call he threatened to maim Paul's children. He also placed acid in a hand dryer in the local pub where Paul frequents, and another patron is subsequently injured. Paul has been diagnosed with depression from which he may not recover, his phycologist attributes this illness directly with the contact from A

Albert also lives at home with his elderly parents, who he has also taken his anger out upon. He has refused to let them leave the house, and has forbidden them to see the doctor even though one of them is ill. It is likely that one of his parents has developed pneumonia.

I think Albert would be liable and likely to be charged with:

Section 2 NFOATPA 1997 assault of a psychic nature for the phone calls per R v Ireland
Section 3 NFOATPA 1997 Assault causing harm for handdryer per DPP v K (1990)
Section 5 NFOATPA 1997 Threats to kill or maim
Section 3 NFOATPA 1997 Causing Harm/Mental Distress for the depression
Section 15 NFOATPA 1997 False Imprisonment for refusing to let out the parents

So, I'm not necessarily looking for an answer to the scenario. But I am interested in which, if any, of the above offences would Albert be likely to be charged with should they be arrested?

Sempai

Corruptable wrote: »

The scenario, primarily involving Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person:


I think Albert would be liable and likely to be charged with:

Section 2 NFOATPA 1997 assault of a psychic nature for the phone calls per R v Ireland
Section 3 NFOATPA 1997 Assault causing harm for handdryer per DPP v K (1990)
Section 5 NFOATPA 1997 Threats to kill or maim
Section 3 NFOATPA 1997 Causing Harm/Mental Distress for the depression
Section 15 NFOATPA 1997 False Imprisonment for refusing to let out the parents

So, I'm not necessarily looking for an answer to the scenario. But I am interested in which, if any, of the above offences would Albert be likely to be charged with should they be arrested?

Not sure about the Section 2 assault, but I understand where you're going as to the person believing that he may be subjected to an assault. I'd say Section 5 would cover that, as well as Section 10 Harassment and nuisance phone calls under an older act.

Also Sect 2 Criminal Damage, for the acid in the hand dryer.

Corruptable

Sempai wrote: »

Not sure about the Section 2 assault, but I understand where you're going as to the person believing that he may be subjected to an assault. I'd say Section 5 would cover that, as well as Section 10 Harassment and nuisance phone calls under an older act.

Also Sect 2 Criminal Damage, for the acid in the hand dryer.

Section 10 of the 1997 covers harrassment, so to me it seems like there's a definate overlap between s.2, s.5, and s.10 in some circumstances.

10 - (1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.