Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
3. Actus reus: Conduct
❖ The act requirement
❖ Voluntary wrongdoing.
❖ Hayward: it was sufficient that the accused threatened and chased his
victim, who died of a heart attack.
❖ How to identify acts reus?
❖ it is given in the definition of the crime
❖ To kill, Wound, GBH, inflict harm, appropriate property of
another.
❖ Result - Death (Homicide), injury (OAPA, wound, GBH 47, 20/18)
4. Actus reus: Situational liability
❖ Crimes involving state of affairs
❖ Certain offences require proof not of some form of conduct
but simply of the defendant being in a situation which the
law forbids the defendant to be in or continue to be in.
❖ Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971: if
any oil is discharged into any part of the sea from the pipe-
line, the owner of the pipe shall be guilty of an offence
❖ Such offences often criticised for allowing criminal
conviction in the absence of any voluntary wrongdoing
5. Actus reus: Situational liability
Larsonneur:
❖ A French woman arrived in England.
❖ Later ordered to leave the country and she went to Ireland
❖ Deported from Ireland back to England
❖ On her arrival she was convicted for being an alien under
Aliens Order 1920
❖ She was convicted despite the fact that her presence in
England was involuntary
6. Actus reus: Situational liability
Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent:
❖ Def brought o hospital on a stretcher and was found to
be drunk.
❖ When he refused to leave after hospital staff asked him
to do so, police took him on the highway outside the
hospital and he was charged of ‘being drunk’ in the
highway under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872
❖ Court upheld the conviction
7. Actus reus: Situational liability
Analysis
❖ These decision are criticised for being too harsh.
❖ Problem with situational liability is that it may stray too far
from the criminal law’s paradigm of culpable wrong doing.
❖ As long as an offence sets a standard behaviour which can be
conformed by the individuals by avoiding a certain action there
is no reason to limit the substance of such offences to acts.
❖ Winzar got himself into a situation.
8. Actus reus: Situational liability
R v Elvin
❖ Def’s pit bull terrier escaped from his house and bit a
person
❖ Def argued that the dog did not escape due to his
voluntary act or omission
❖ Def charged and convicted for being owner of that dog
that bit a person
9. Actus reus: Crimes of possession
❖ Possession of prohibited objects and substances.
❖ Creation of statutes. They are not found in Common law.
❖ It is enough to establish that the accused is in possession
the object.
❖ If a person is given prohibited objects and he fails to
dispose it off – he is still liable
❖ By failing to remedy the harmful situation – the
Def thereby adopts it as his own.
10. Actus reus: Crimes of possession
Warner 1969
❖ Def given two boxes – one contained scent other contained drugs
❖ Def argued that he thought both contained scent
❖ Held: if a person is on possession of a container he was also in possession of its
contents even if they were quite different from what they were believed to be
❖ This presumption could be rebutted:
❖ The thing has been secreted into the recipient’s bag or onto his person
without his knowledge
❖ Def receives an article whether in a container or not and the thing is
fundamentally different from what it is thought to be.
11. Actus reus: Crimes of possession
Analysis
❖ Possession appears to be inconsistent with the act requirement – possession is a
state of affairs, not a way of behaving
❖ Society is entitled to expect citizens to be responsible about what they allow
into their possession.
❖ If someone gives u a bag to be carried through customs – society expects
you to check it.
❖ The existence of the substance is a social threat – it makes that the person in
possession is held liable
❖ Lacking awareness is not defence – a person is expected to take steps as a
reasonable man would do.
12. Omission
❖ Failure to act: Defendant fails to do something he is
placed under a legal duty to perform.
❖ Generally failure to act does not result in criminal
liability. but, there are exceptions.
❖ There is no such duty of easy rescue under criminal law.
❖ Human autonomy
❖ we are responsible for the acts that we do
voluntarily
13. Omission
Requirements for omission:
1. The conduct element of the crime in question must be
capable of commission by omission;
2. The circumstances must be such as to create a legal
duty to act; and
3. The defendant’s failure to act must be voluntary.
14. Omission
Justifying criminalising omissions - autonomy vs responsibility
❖ Punishing omissions seems to compromise rather than
enhance human autonomy since it makes demands of us
which may well require us to subjugate our interests to those
of others.
❖ Without criminalising omissions society would be trickled
down to compromise the very framework within which
individual autonomy can be enjoyed.
❖ Sometimes responsibility trumps autonomy
15. Omission
The offence must be capable of commission by omission
❖ An offence can be committed by way of omission, if it is
provided in the definition of that offence and if the
defendant is placed under the duty to act.
❖ Example: murder (to cause death), theft, criminal
damage
16. Omission
The offence must be capable of commission by omission
R v Dunn (2015)
❖ Def had caused a 15-year-old girl to masturbate him.
❖ Def was charged with indecent assault.
❖ Indecent assault requires there to be an act of Def’s part,
whereas, here, the act was of the girl’s
❖ Court held that the offence was not made out. The offence
was causing a child to engage in sexual activity.
17. Omission
Duty to act
❖ Is there any duty to act under law that might give rise to liability?
❖ Law does not impose generalised liability for omissions.
❖ "Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep another alive”
❖ A sees B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A
abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned, and B is
drowned. A has committed no offence. (Sir Fitzjames Stephen)
❖ Only in situations where there is legal duty to take action – e.g. parents-
children, spouses or where the Def has assumed responsibility to take
care of the victim.
18. Omission
Duty to act - Special relationship
❖ Parent – child: parent may be guilty of murder for
starving his child to death.
❖ Spouses
❖ R v Hood (2003) Def by gross negligence allowed his
sick wife to remain untreated for 3 weeks after she had
fallen from stairs
❖ Def convicted of gross negligence manslaughter
19. Omission
Duty to act - Special relationship
❖ People v Beardsley (U.S.)
❖ Def had extra martial affair with the Victim
❖ Victim overdosed herself with morphine while being with Def
and eventually died
❖ Issue: Was the Def under a duty to his lover
❖ Held: There is no duty imposed on the Def.
20. Omission
Duty to act - Special relationship
❖ Analysis:
❖ Duty is imposed in these situations because the Def has
place himself in the frame by their status/role/conduct.
21. Omission
Duty to act - Contractual relationships
R v Pitwood (1902):
Facts
❖ The defendant was employed to operate the gate at a level
crossing across the track.
❖ Def failed to close the gate, train hit a horse cart and the Victim
died.
❖ Def was convicted of manslaughter and subsequently applied for
permission to appeal.
22. Omission
Duty to act - Contractual relationships
❖ Pitwood (1902):
Issue
❖ Whether an omission (in this case the failure to close the
gate) could constitute the actus reus for murder.
23. Omission
Duty to act - Contractual relationships
❖ Pitwood (1902):
Held
❖ Def had been under a contractual duty to close the gate, his omission to
perform this obligation was capable of constituting the actus reus for murder.
❖ This was particularly so as the purpose of the defendant’s employment was
for the protection of the public, and his employer was responsible for
preventing accidents at the crossing.
❖ In the circumstances, the duty had been breached with gross and criminal
negligence.
24. Omission
Duty to act - Informal assumption of duty
❖ Where a person voluntarily assumes the duty – relationship of
dependence.
Gibbins and Proctor:
❖ A dad and his cohabitee were convicted for death of the infant
❖ Dad as a parent and his cohabitee for having assumed, and
failed to discharge, the care of the infant
❖ Where the relationship is of support and dependence
25. Omission
The duty to avert a dangerous situation caused by the
defendant
❖ In certain scenarios defendant causes a dangerous situation
– hence, it is his responsibility to intervene and stop any loss
❖ Which dangerous situation? Where it is created by the
defendant without fault being attributable to the def’s act.
❖ Not in those situations where Def is at fault
26. Omission
The duty to avert a dangerous situation caused by the defendant
Miller (1983)
❖ Def was in victim’s house.
❖ While in the house, def was smoking and fell asleep without extinguishing the
cigarette.
❖ He awoke and found his bed on fire, and instead of extinguishing the fire he
moved to another room.
❖ House was damaged and def was charged with arson (criminal act of setting fire
to property)
❖ Issue: Def argued that arson was a crime of commission, while his wrong is not
actions, i.e. omission.
27. Omission
The duty to avert a dangerous situation caused by the defendant
Miller (1983)
❖ Issue: Def argued that arson was a crime of commission, while his wrong is
not actions, i.e. omission.
❖ Held:
❖ Criminal damage can occur through omission when Def fails to take
such measures that lie within his own power to counteract a danger that
he has created
❖ In these circumstances, it is def’s ‘responsibility’ to prevent the damage
caused by him.
28. Omission
The duty to avert a dangerous situation caused by the
defendant
Evans (2009)
❖ Def brought heroine for his sister.
❖ She injected herself with it and fell seriously ill.
❖ Def decided not to seek medical help for victim out of fear
that they may all get into trouble
❖ Victim died, and Def was charged for manslaughter
29. Omission
The duty to avert a dangerous situation caused by the
defendant
Evans (2009)
❖ Held:
❖ D is liable for gross negligence manslaughter
❖ although the injection was voluntary act of V, a duty
to take care of the V was present, and breached by
omission.
30. Omission
The duty to avert a dangerous situation caused by the
defendant
❖ Simester and Sullivan– “Evans represent an illegitimate
extension of Miller” – principles of responsibility should
not be invented on an ad hoc basis to deal with specific
problems such as this – this decision shall be confined to
cases where D has materially contributed to and then
intentionally failed to prevent the consequences of a risk
arising from intervention by the victim.
31. Omission
Circumstances governing the scope of the duty
❖ Criminal liability requires voluntariness of action.
❖ Omission also needs to be voluntary. Voluntary
omission is failure to “perform an act of which the
defendant is physically capable”.
32. Omission
Distinguishing acts from omissions
❖ It is important to distinguish btw acts and omissions –
as there is normally no liability for omissions.
33. Omission
Distinguishing acts from omissions
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
❖ Patient was suffering from persistent vegetative state (PVS).
❖ Patient was kept alive using a nasogastric feeding tube.
❖ Hospital applied to the High Court for declaration that it would be
lawful to discontinue artificial feeding and hydration, so that the
patient could die.
❖ Issue: Whether disconnection was an act or an omission? If it was an
act, the disconnection would be unlawful, it an omission, then lawful.
34. Omission
Distinguishing acts from omissions
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
❖ Issue: Whether disconnection was an act or an omission? If it was an
act, the disconnection would be unlawful, it an omission, then
lawful.
❖ Held:
❖ it was an omission.
❖ Even though it seems an act, but the true cause of the subsequent
death would be the failure to provide life-sustaining treatment.