Please prepare the following for the discussion forum:
(a). An Initial Post, (300 words), then
(b.) 4 nos. Posts (300 words each, total 300×4=1200 words)
Can you please do the initial post first at your earliest, then 4 more posts? Once I got the responses from other colleagues, then I need 4 responding posts to them, and eventually the final summary post.
(c.) 4 nos. responding posts, (300 words each, total 300×4=1200 words) – I will send them to you once I got the responses from them;
and finally
(d.). a Summary Post (300 words).
Total: A total of 10 posts, 3000 words.
—————————————————————————————————————
Discussion Topic
Please read the following facts and consider the criminal liability, if any, of Neil and Kate under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and the common law.
Neil, a medical student, has a serious shoe fetish, finding men’s brown shoes a real turn on. One of the other students on his course, Thomas, bought a new pair of designer brown loafers and Neil was very attracted to them. Neil started following Thomas everywhere at university and taking photos of Thomas wearing the new shoes. Neil would often leave Thomas a present of brown shoe polish, a new pair of laces or a photo of Thomas’s shoes in his student pigeon-hole. Consequently Thomas became ill through stress just before his exams and asked the doctor to sign him off university, which the doctor duly did stating that he was suffering from severe depression.
To relieve the frustrations created by Thomas’s brown shoes Neil decided to visit his local sado-masochist mistress, Kate, and ask her to walk up and down his naked back whilst wearing red patent stiletto boots. Kate granted his request and did so whilst also whipping him all over with a whip. The whipping left large welts on Neil’s back, and the stiletto heels caused a number of deep puncture marks to his skin.
Neil then had consensual sexual intercourse with Kate without using any protection despite the fact that he thought he might have contracted HIV from an earlier mistress. Kate mistakenly thought that Neil was the client who had shown her his HIV clear medical certificate earlier that week and so did not insist that he wore a condom. Three months later Kate was diagnosed as having contracted HIV.
Consider the criminal liability, if any, of Neil and Kate under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and the common law.
Guidelines for discussion responses:
- Your initial posting must respond to the question above in full and be 300 words long.
- Your posts are expected to be made throughout the time the Discussion Forum is open in order to aid the development of the discussion.
- Please try to limit all of your posts to 300 words maximum, so that others may be encouraged to reflect on, and respond to your ideas.
- You are expected to contribute 10 postings during that period, so you should respond to the postings of the other students several times.
- You must complete a summary post at the end of the discussion reflecting on your learning.
- Your summary post must be included within the maximum number of posts allowed.
- Use OSCOLA referencing.
