I need help creating a thesis and an outline on Criminal Law Doctrines of Sexual and Person Offences. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is r

I need help creating a thesis and an outline on Criminal Law Doctrines of Sexual and Person Offences. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required. The criterion that is used is by assessing whether a reasonable man would have been able to assess the risk inherent in his actions that caused harm, which will be sufficient to establish men's rea3. However, the road accident has occurred through no fault of James and it is only after the incident that James discovered that the man killed happened to be Hugh. Therefore, the underlying intent to cause bodily harm with malice afterthought will not be established. Despite the fact that James had set out with murderous intentions which indicate the existence of men's rea he did not actually carry them out which means the absence of actus rea and the accident was not the result of malice afterthought. Therefore he should not be charged with murder.

Ans 3: Yes, Alice would be definitely convicted of murdering Charles. She caused actual bodily harm with malice afterthought since she had come to Beth’s house to kill her. Therefore both actus reus and men's rea are established, as is the malice afterthought. It will not matter against whom the violent act is directed, it is the consequences and the intent that will be assessed by the Courts. For example, in the case of R v Latimer4 the defendant dealt a blow to one person but someone else was wounded, yet the defendant was convicted of maliciously wounding the victim. Moreover, as established in the case of R v Dawson5 the possibility of physical harm as opposed to emotional harm should be foreseeable to the defendant and will determine his liability. Ruth could have foreseen the bodily harm that could take place since she had a gun, therefore she will be held guilty.

If the bullet had not hit Charles but had smashed the window, Ruth can be held liable under the law for the intent to kill, however, it is unlikely that a murder conviction will stand since neither Charles nor Beth will be injured in that case.

According to Section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, “whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable….”&nbsp.&nbsp.