英语论文网

use of Lords in B {A Minor} v DPP [17] overturned the decision in Prince. In this case, a girl aged 13 was a passenger on a bus and the defendant, who was aged 15 years, sat next to her. The defendant asked the girl to perform oral sex with him. She refused. He repeated his request several times and she repeatedly refused. The defendant honestly believed that she was over the age of 14. The justices ruled that the terms of section 1(1) imposed strict liability and a mistaken belief as to the age of the victim could not amount to a defense. This shows that the law is not constant and questionable in comparisons to Prince.

The question is when can a person be held liable for conduct of crime? Common sense should prevail sometimes like the case of B {A Minor} v DPP [18] ; his action could establish a criminal sanction due to its positive actions, which result in his desire to satisfy an unwarranted sexual urge unlike the case of Prince who was lied to but still convicted.

The case of R v Miller, [19] Lord Diplock commenting on the case, said that the defendant would not have been liable if his role was at no time more than that of a passive bystander. This is a case where common sense should prevail, we were made to understand that failure to act could result to criminal liability.'The principle is that where a person accidentally creates a danger he or she can be liable for letting the danger eventuate. More technically, the rule is that where the law forbids a particular result (whether we call the crime a result-crime or not), then mens rea conceived after the act and before the result occurs (but at the time when the defendant could still have prevented the result) can (as the law is now established by Miller) lead to liability, provided that the defendant's conduct falls within the terms of the offence'. [20] It was obvious that Miller consciously created danger and is liable to a criminal sanction.
本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。