Burglary And Assault Liability

During a heated argument, a woman angrily pushes her partner, causing him to fall and hit his head on a table. He suffers a bruise. The woman says she only meant to push him away and didn’t intend to cause injury. She is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section * of the Offences Against the Person Act *. Which of the following best describes whether the woman will be liable for the offence? Select one alternative: The woman is liable as she intended to cause some harm. The woman is liable because she intended to apply unlawful force and actual bodily harm resulted. The woman is not liable because she did not intend to cause actual bodily harm. The woman is only liable if she foresaw that some harm was likely. The woman is not liable because the injury was accidental.

A man is at a busy café when he notices a mobile phone left on a table. He picks it up, puts it in his bag, and continues with his meal. Before leaving, he has second thoughts as he thinks he may have been seen picking it up, and so leaves the phone in the café’s toilet cubicle. Staff later recover it. The man is identified on CCTV and is charged with theft under the Theft Act *. Is the man likely to be criminally liable for theft? Select one alternative: Yes, because intending to take something temporarily is still considered theft. No, because he did not intend to keep the phone permanently. Yes, because all of the elements of the offence are present. No, because he returned the item before leaving the premises. No, because he left the phone in a place where it could be found, so the appropriation was not dishonest.

In which one of the following alternative scenarios is the Administrative Court likely to find that an abuse of process has taken place? A claimant has brought a judicial review action against his local authority for an alleged failure to act fairly in relation to a statutory process. A claimant has brought a judicial review action in anticipation of an on-going statutory right of appeal process proving unsuccessful. A defendant in a civil action has pleaded a public law argument in defence of a civil claim against them even though the relevant JR time limit has expired. A claimant has pleaded a claim for damages in a judicial review action in relation to a breach of a duty of a public authority under s. *(*) of the Human Rights Act, in tandem with an application for a quashing order. A claimant has brought a private law claim in the County Court even though there are ancillary public law elements to her case in addition to a claim for breach of contract.