You may choose between schizophrenia or depression or borderline personality disorder. Substance use issues or disorder may also be included as a comorbid factor / condition with the mental health disorder. 2. Briefly describe the theories that may explain the development of the disorder 3. Outline the features which may characterise and lead to diagnosis of the particular disorder. 4. Discuss the potential impacts which the disorder may have on the health and lifestyle of the person living with that disorder. This will include consideration of the impact on the family / carers. 5. Develop a plan of care which will support a recovery approach to mental health care Support your discussion with relevant literature.
Criminal Liability Case Study Distributed: 23rd March, 2015 Last Edited: eleventh December, 2017 Disclaimer: This paper has been presented by an understudy. This isn’t a case of the work composed by our expert paper journalists. You can see tests of our expert work here. Any assessments, discoveries, conclusions or proposals communicated in this material are those of the writers and don’t really mirror the perspectives of UK Essays. Table of Statutes Offenses Against the Person Act 1861 Robbery Act 1968 The Criminal Damages Act 1971 Criminal Damages Act 1971 Tables of cases Perkins and Boyce Criminal Law 830-831 (third ed. 1982) Corridor, General Principles of Criminal Law 222-27 (2d ed. 1960) Rv wolling(1998)A ALL ER103) DPPv Majewski (1976) All ER42 Rv Burstow Rv Ireland 1997AC Diolock LJ in mowatt (1967) 3 ALLER 47 DPPV Majewski Rv Rivhardson and Irwin (1999) LR 494 and Rv hardie (1984) 3 ALL ER 848. Rv Miller (1954)) 2.QB 282 Rv cunninghum (1957). 2 QB 396 Rv savage. Rv parameter (1992) 1 AC 699 Betts and Ridley (1930) 22 Cr App R148 and Rv Baldessare (1930) 22 Cr App R 70 Rv cahill (1993) Crime LR141 DPP v Lavender (1993) Crime LR 297 Rv G (2003) 4 ALL ER 765 R v burtow , R v Ireland (1998) AC 147 Rv Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 Rv Calhaem(1985) 2 ALL ER 266 Rv saunders and Archer(1573) 2 furrowed 473 Rv Leaby (1985)Crim LR99 This task will investigate numerous fascinating inquiries thinking about criminal obligation of Jane, Francine, Sam and Allan, actus reus, mens rea and the conditions when a man is subject for the criminal demonstrations of another. Each criminal offense has two parts: one of these is objective, the other is subjective; one is physical, the other is mental; one is the actus reus, the other is the mens rea. The actus reus for the most part contrasts from wrongdoing to wrongdoing. In kill it is crime; in thievery it is the nighttime breaking into the residence of another; in expressing a manufactured instrument it is the demonstration of offering as great an instrument which is in reality false. In like way the mens rea varies from wrongdoing to wrongdoing. In kill it is malignance aforethought; in robbery it is the plan to submit a crime; in articulating a manufactured instrument it is “information” that the instrument is false in addition to a purpose to swindle. Perkins and Boyce Criminal Law 830-831 (third ed. 1982). The actus reus must be causally identified with the mens rea for a wrongdoing to happen: “An insidious aim and an unlawful activity must agree to constitute a wrongdoing.” 93 N.E. 249. In spite of the fact that it is often said that no mens rea is required for a strict obligation offense, the actus reus alone being adequate (see e.g., 361 U.S. 147, 150 and 342 U.S. 246, 256), it is more valuable to distinguish an extraordinary mens rea for the common offense that perceives the low level of culpability associated with a strict or common offense. With regards to the demonstration being adequate even in the strict obligation setting, a “liable demonstration” (instead of a forced represent illustration) would appear to be required. Lobby, General Principles of Criminal Law 222-27 (2d ed. 1960). corpus delicti. http://www.answers.com/theme/actus-reus#Notes Latin: a psyche to be denounced; a blameworthy personality. In numerous frameworks of law, criminal blame requires not just that a demonstration was performed (actus reus) yet additionally that it was performed with a suitable mentality. Having the goal to play out a wrongdoing is adequate, yet not important to mens rea. Anticipating a symptom, for example, a passing could tally, regardless of whether the demise isn’t planned, and rash carelessness could likewise constitute mens rea. As a component of criminal obligation, a liable personality; a blameworthy or wrongful reason; a criminal purpose. Liable learning and determination. A central standard of criminal law is that a wrongdoing comprises of both a psychological and a physical component. Mens rea, a man’s familiarity with the way that his or her lead is criminal, is the mental component, and actus reus, the demonstration itself, is the physical component generally wrongdoings, including customary law violations, are characterized by statutes that as a rule contain a word or expression showing the mens rea prerequisite. A normal statute, for instance, may require that a man demonstration intentionally, deliberately, or rashly. Now and again a statute makes criminal obligation for the commission or oversight of a specific demonstration without assigning a mens rea. These are called strict obligation statutes. On the off chance that such a statute is interpreted to intentionally preclude criminal goal, a man who carries out the wrongdoing might be liable even despite the fact that he or she had no information that his or her demonstration was criminal and had no idea of carrying out a wrongdoing. All that is required under such statutes is that the demonstration itself is willful, since automatic acts are not criminal. http://www.answers.com/point/mens-rea Jane’s criminal obligation for the wounds lina An examination of jane’s obligation of he hurt caused Lina must begin by considering the damage done. The articulation gravely Burt is suggestive horrifying mischief substantial damage , so opening up the likelihood of offenses in spite of both s.18 and s.20 of Offenses Against the Person Act 1861.Under s.18 there would need to be verification that Jane had caused shocking real mischief, which these reason would be fulfilled by prove that the consumes constituted genuine mischief Rv sanderts 1985 wrongdoing Lr230)there are no causation issues .The tossing of firecrackers causes the damage actually and there is no confirmation of any novus acuts intervenient. The issue for arraignment would be viewed as the mens rea, did jane mean to make unfortunate substantial damage any individual? Unless there is confirm that jane predicted such mischief as practically certain Rv wolling(1998)A ALL ER103) There will no reason for a s.18 charge. Proof of such forsight appears to be far-fetched, particularly if the tossing of the firecracker was implied as a trick, encourage issues would emerge under s18 in regard of jane’s liquor utilization. The offense is one of particular purpose so jane was inebriated hence she can’t be blameworthy of the s 18 offense see DPPv Majewski (1976) All ER42, Whether or not jane was inebriated will be question of reality for the jury. Previously mentioned focuses in a mind a charge under is s20 of the Offense Against the Person Act 1861 would seen all the more encouraging. The arraignment should demonstrate that jane malignantly exacted terrible substantial damages on the lina. The mischief will be made out as can be viewed as synonymous with causing Rv Burstow Rv Ireland 1997AC 147.The mental component here requires evidence that jane farsaw the likelihood of some Diolock LJ in mowatt (1967) 3 ALLER 47. On the truth of the matter is it conceivable that jane did not predict any physical damage ,particularly on the off chance that she gave no idea to the likelihood of there being anybody on the opposite side of the fence. In the event that jane was inebriated she could in any case acquire risk unders s20. an (essential aim wrongdoing) if there is confirm that she was foolhardy in getting to be inebriated and, subsequently, was unconscious of a danger of physical damage being caused that she would have known about had she been calm. DPPV Majewski and resulting choices, for example, Rv Rivhardson and Irwin (1999) crime LR 494 and Rv hardie (1984) 3 ALL ER 848. On the off chance that the mischief done does not add up to horrifying substantial damage, or the mens rea for s 20. can’t be built up, jane might be charged under s47 of the Offense Against the Person Act 1961 the she struck lina and in this manner incidental real substantial mischief The consumes would without a doubt fulfill the meaning of genuine real damage Rv Miller (1954)) 2.QB 282.Theonly mens rea required would be intension to strike or neglectful, yet the subjective carelessness Rv cunninghum (1957). 2 QB 396.jane should subsequently, be demonstrated to have known whether hazard that someone else may be ambushed or battered by her activities, so there would be no compelling reason to demonstrate that she predicted any genuine substantial mischief Rv savage. Rv parameter (1992) 1 AC 699 again s 47 is fundamental expect wrongdoing that remarks in regards to the essentialness of inebriation in connection to s 20 apply here. Francine’s criminal risk accessory jane. Francine urge jane to toss the fire work and can be portrayed as somebody who a betted to offense by jane. Francine was the scene of the wrongdoing and impelled jane on Francine will contend that she didn’t feel that anybody would be profit her. Associate will be gathering to all the unanticipated or unintentional outcomes of the concurred course of lead completed by the primary guilty party. In the present stick jane measurements absolutely what Francine tells . she ought to do, so Francine will be a gathering to coming about offenses Rv Betts and Ridley (1930) 22 Cr App R148 and Rv Baldessare (1930) 22 Cr App R 70. It is conceivable that Francine as an accessory might be accused of and discovered liable of a more genuine offense than that which Jane is accused of. Note of the Francine is calm so she might be fit for more prominent premonition of damage striking another. There is nothing on a basic level to forestall Francine being accused of a more genuine offenses than that charged against jane. Sam’s criminal risk against in regards to the drain Sam might be liable of robbery drain. It is obviously property having a place with another s.4(1) and s. 5(1) of the Theft Act 1968. He appropriates the drain by concealing it s.3(1) of the 1968 Act. Any supposition of any privilege of the proprietor can sum an assignment of property. It is difficult to perceive any contention by which he could assert not to untrustworthy. The main issue is intension to forever deny. Sam will contend that he had no such intension, however s 6(1) of the Theft Act 1968 gives that regardless of whether he didn’t really plan jane to forever lose the drain, his managing it can be viewed as confirmation id his having the intension of for all time denying her of it. Since sam regarded the drain as his own to discard paying little heed to>