Garantie de satisfaction à 100% Disponible immédiatement après paiement En ligne et en PDF Tu n'es attaché à rien
logo-home
Law Problem Solving & the Law answer : 70% $7.84
Ajouter au panier

Dissertation

Law Problem Solving & the Law answer : 70%

 0 fois vendu
  • Cours
  • Établissement

Law Problem Solving & the Law answer :70% includes oscola citations

Aperçu 1 sur 4  pages

  • 10 mars 2024
  • 4
  • 2022/2023
  • Dissertation
  • Inconnu
  • A+
  • Inconnu
avatar-seller
As mentioned in the scenario above, Zac has been convicted of violating sections 21 and 4 of
the Protection from Harassment Act 19972, also classified as PHA, for the numerous
harassments perpetrated against Olivia and for inciting fear of violence. Furthermore, this
written essay will determine whether Zac will be successfully prosecuted for the crimes
committed against Olivia by outlining the different elements of S.2 and S.4 offences such as
the course of conduct, the amount of harassment, instilling fear in another person, as well as
the know and ought to know being the subjective and objective approach with supporting
legal case laws.

Considering whether Zac’s course of conduct against Olivia qualifies as harassment under
both section 2 and 4 is the first important component. A further definition of the Actus Reus,
which is an essential element of the course of conduct in this scenario, can be identified in
S.7 (3a) of the PHA3, which the legislation states to be ‘a situation that involves more than
one person, the course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions’.
Additionally, this can be mirrored with the case of R v Hills4, which clarifies an example of
what is meant by a ‘course of conduct’ stating that if the incidents occurred distantly from
one another at different times, it would be less likely to establish that a course of conduct has
been engaged in therefore, this shows that it can be ignored.

However, this can be distinguished from the Lau v DPP5 case, which establishes that there
must be a cogent link used if the incident occurred at some distance in which a cogent link
must be presented. In addition, going back to the scenario, the cogent link between Zac and
Olivia became apparent when Zac learned and infuriated that Olivia had broken up with him.
To put it simply, the breakup was the catalyst of the current course of conduct events.
Additionally, there have been more than two incidents that match the course of conduct being
made, and these incidents started months after the cogent link that determined the couple’s
break up. Furthermore, the first occasion of the course of conduct being described occurred
when Olivia was pursued into her place of employment by Zac, which caused him to yell and
accuse her of dating one of her colleagues. In addition, Zac’s verbal abuse can be also used in
accordance with S.7(4)6, which outlines what is referred to as a ‘conduct of speech’. This
proves that Zac’s speech behaviour complies with the suggested behaviour, as shown by what
he said.

Another occasion of the same pattern of the course of conduct being presented was when
Olivia turned down a date that he had proposed, and in response, he sent 25 disparaging
WhatsApp messages to her in a space of an hour. This continuous behaviour here being
presented represents a pattern of repetitive and chronological behaviour. This was another
occasion where the course of conduct repeated itself. Additionally, this helps to explain
another occasion that occurred the following week when Zac sat in the park and started at
Olivia nonstop for a full week. Moreover, this can also be contrasted with the numerous
occasions established under S.47 in which the act stipulates to be that an individual’s ‘course
of conduct which causes the victim to fear that violence on at least to occasion.’ The first
occasion that took place was when Zac violently grabbed Olivia’s arm and threatened to kill

1
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S2.
2
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S4.
3
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S.7(3a).
4
[2001] 1 FCR 569.
5
[2000] 1 FLR 799.
6
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S.7(4).
7
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, S4.

Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:

Qualité garantie par les avis des clients

Qualité garantie par les avis des clients

Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.

L’achat facile et rapide

L’achat facile et rapide

Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.

Focus sur l’essentiel

Focus sur l’essentiel

Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.

Foire aux questions

Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?

Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.

Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?

Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.

Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?

Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur lawofmae. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.

Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?

Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour $7.84. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.

Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?

4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)

65040 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours

Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 15 ans

Commencez à vendre!

Récemment vu par vous


$7.84
  • (0)
Ajouter au panier
Ajouté