What would be the charge (if any) ?

[Bewlay Bros]

OK, hypothethetical question.

You are a veggie, not due to cultural reasons but you have a strong adversity to meat.

You attend a wedding where the outside caterers seperate veggie and meat products by placing little flags with a "V" on the veggie food. They have done everything in the correct protocol, even cooking in seperate pots etc.

A man then thinks it will be funny to stick a V flag into a small beef pastie WITH THE INTENTION of causing a veggie to be disgusted and alarmed.

However you the veggie bite in to a beef pastie which causes you to convulse violently, go in to shock and hospitalises you for two days.

What charge would you bring if any?

I have many in mind, but none would stick.

[4GS]

Assault with intent to cause bodily harm

[ching chong]

call him criminal

[daffy654]

I could understand a vegetarian being upset at inadvertently eating meat but if they actually were hospitalised by it I would say they were neurotic and in need of the mental health services............I know that isn't what you asked but I couldn't help myself.

[dot.hawkes]

causing actual bodily harm?? or in law does that involve actually touching the other person as opposed to inflicting harm?

[Bewlay Bros]

lambert, there was no INTENT to cause harm. Transfered malice would not be viable either.

daffy, of substitute beef with a nut and the person suffers a serious nut allergy.

[daffy654]

In your second example the case /charge would depend on whether the perpetrator knew the victim suffered from life threatening nut allergies. If it could be proved they did then attempted murder would be a suitable charge in my opinion.............i'm not sure thats what would actually happen though.

[Bewlay Bros]

dotty

Def of assault "An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force"


Would the poisioning constitute unlawful force (or violence)

Is it even enough for recklessness (there has to be a foreseen chance that IT may happen.

[Bewlay Bros]

And the actual poisioning laws are not applicable either.

[dot.hawkes]

It does I suppose come down to malice aforethought!! what is that in law?

[4GS]

A drunk driver wouldn't INTEND hurting anyone either but if he/she was involved in a accident where there was an injury to someone, then a criminal act has been carried out.

Causing actual bodily harm would suffice as a charge seeing as the person eating the pies was hospitalised.

[Bewlay Bros]

Only really used in murder.

Insofaras they wanted to at least seriously GBH the victim.

It is basically the difference between murder and manslaughter.

[Bewlay Bros]

A charge has to have a reasonable chance of suceeding in a conviction at court.

This day and age with the CPS advising on charging, they would never give a simple ABH on this.

[4GS]

True
however you asked what charge I would bring, as you say, the chance of it going to court would be minimal

[emlett]

i seem to recall that you can recklessly or negligently harm someone without knowing that necessarily will happen but doesn't it have to be reasonably foreseeable which i don't think this would be.
I think the CPS would not bring a charge on this basis as well as the basis that they couldn't be bothered if it wouldn't result in a definite conviction and mess up their statistics.

[Eve]

Could use the eggshell skull rule rebuttable by the crumblinbg skull rule - argh...this is why I never wanted to do criminal law!

[dot.hawkes]

Oh Hi again Jenna!

That sounds fascinating have you time to enlighten us about the skull and the eggshell?

[Eve]

From what I remember eggshell skull is take your victim as you find them (ie that it's tough if what you did to them was made worse due to a pre-existing condition).

Crumbling skull can rebut by "arguing that whatever harm incurred by the victim was inevitable and the defendant's acts only had a minimal effect upon the already deteriorating circumstances".

[Eve]

Sorry Dot, Hi :) Am off to Nando's but will try and rejoin the debate later if I can drag up some law degree memories worth sharing?!?

[4GS]

The eggshell skull rule is a legal doctrine used in both tort law and criminal law that holds an individual liable for all consequences resulting from his or her activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition).Tthe responsible party would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even though they were not foreseeable. The general maxim is that defendants must "take their victims as they find them",

[Bewlay Bros]

My understanding of the eggshell skull is pretty much the same as transferred malice.

That is the actual act (however minor) has to be illegal in the first place.

For example if I punched you on the arm for a joke and it burst a mole or something, then technically yes I have caused it as the action was inappropriate, regardless of my level of intent of guilty knowledge of your mole. Thjis is because a punch is illegal.

However, if I pushed you (a common assault) but infact I pushed you out of the path of a car. However you fell on a railing and it spiked you in the head and killed you. My action was not unlawful, due to implied consent.

My point is, is changing the V flags over a wrongdoing (civil tort or crime) in the first instance?