Discuss Alvin's liability for criminal offences in relation to Bela and to Claire.
With regards to Bela, Alvin could potentially be liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to S47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Alvin committed the actus reus of this offence in the form of assault. He did this as a voluntary act (Hill v Baxter, 1958) as he caused Bela to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence by shouting very wildly towards her in a conscious exercise of will (R v Ireland, 1997). Bela suffered actual bodily harm as she fainted and was unwilling to leave her house for months afterwards, which interfered with her health an comfort and was not merely transient or trifling (R v Chan Fook, 1994).
In terms of causation, Alvin would be the factual cause of Bela's actual bodily harm as "but for" Alvin shouting wildly towards her, Bela would not have fainted and feel too scared to leave her house (R v Pagett, 1983).
(Entire answer not provided but was marked 24/25 overall).
Related Law A Level answers
All answers ▸Before leaving Les’s house, Neil swallowed some tablets which he found in the bathroom. Subsequently, back in his own flat, he set fire to the carpet (which belonged to the landlord) under the delusion that he was making a camp-fire. The fire spread rapid
What role does the doctrine of 'good faith' have to play in the English law of contract?
What remedies are available for breach of implied terms?
How do I decide whether the defense of intoxication can be used for any particular offence?