Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Your assignment is to prepare and submit a paper on people who are considered guilty of a crime.
Your assignment is to prepare and submit a paper on people who are considered guilty of a crime. Boris is a person who is wanted by the police. Boris tried to evade capture by driving his car away from PC Ali causing the later some serious physical injuries when he fell from the bonnet of the car. Given the facts of the case, Boris has committed a violation of sections 47 and 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act. As stated in Section 20 of the Act, a person who “unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapons or instrument…” shall be guilty of battery. As ruled by the Court in the case of R v Ireland and Burstow (1997)1 where the victim sustained breaks in the skin, he or she is said to sustain grievous bodily harm. In the case at bar, PC Ali was seriously wounded because of his fall from the bonnet of Boris’ car. According to Elliot, C., and Quinn (2000), the bodily harm done on the victim is considered grievous even if it is needle prick as long as a break in the skin occurs as evidenced by the flow of blood from the wound.
The defense of Boris that he is mentally disturbed and is suffering from mental disorders which made him consider the act of PC Ali as aggressive is untenable. Note that PC Ali is an officer of the law and Boris knows that. Note that the incident happened when PC Ali was on duty and PC Ali merely knocked on the window of Boris to ask him to get out of the car. An officer on duty can lawfully ask a person to get out of the car if he has reasons to believe that the person inside the car has committed a crime. Since PC Ali was performing a lawful act, Boris could not use the defense of aggression. Besides, if one is to take the defense of aggression, one must prove that the force applied to repel aggression is commensurate to the harm that is intending to prevent. .Note that in the case of R v Anthony Martin (2001) the test for the force that will be applied to prevent a wrong is very much objective and does not make any excuses or allowances.
