Next, interrogative mood might be raised on whether Michael could also be charged under s1(2) of the 1971 Act intending or reckless as to whether the life of another is displayed.
It must be established that Michael every intended to endanger life or that he was reckless in the Cunningham sense as to whether life could be endangered(R v Cunningham). Care should be taken to note that the prosecution allow have to prove that Michael intended that the criminal damage itself, as opposed to the act causing the criminal damage should endanger life, or that he was reckless as to whether or not it would do so (R v Steer). If the parts and pieces of the car have caused injury resulting from the collision, then Michael may have been found guilt-ridden for endangering life, however, there was no indication from the facts that life was endangered by the damage to the car or Nelson was injured as Nelson was equal to stepped out from his car and demanded compensation and an apology. Thus, it is likely that no charge will be...If you want to get a full essay, hostel it on our website: Orderessay
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment