Offences Against The Person And Property

Part A: Offences Against the Person

Anthony and Heather own the Cardinal Hotel in Yorkshire. To celebrate the opening of the hotel’s new restaurant they organised a party at the hotel for patrons.  

On the morning of the party, Heather was informed by hotel guest, Taylor, that a plug socket in her hotel room was sparking electricity. Heather immediately sent an email to Danny, an electrician employed by the hotel, requesting that he fix the plug socket immediately. Danny emailed Heather back saying he would attend to the job right away. However, on the way to Taylor’s hotel room, Danny collided with Landon, who was carrying a tray of drinks. Danny was covered in orange juice and went to change his clothes, forgetting about the faulty plug in Taylor’s room.

Over 100 guests attended the party. Anthony hired a swing band to entertain the guests. Larry was a trumpet player in the band. As he went to sit down in his chair on the stage, Frances, the singer in the band, as a joke, pulled Larry’s chair away from him. Larry fell to the ground, but did not sustain any injuries.  

Anthony also hired two actors – Brooke and Amanda - to engage in a judo exhibition.  At one point in the exhibition, Brooke, kicks Amanda in the face, causing Amanda’s lip to split.  Amanda requires 3 stitches at the hospital.  Amanda’s boyfriend, Chad, who was watching the exhibition, yelled at Brooke “You’ll need stitches if you come near us again.”  Brook left the exhibition in a mood and went home to apartment she shared with her boyfriend, Vernon.  Later that night, Vernon’s identical twin brother, Lou, let himself into Brooke’s apartment using the key Vernon had given to him.  Lou went upstairs to let Brooke know he was in the house. Brooke, mistaking Lou for Vernon, invited Lou into bed with her. Lou said nothing and got into bed with Brooke, and the two had sexual intercourse.   After the exhibition at the hotel finished at 10pm, Taylor returned to her hotel room.  She presumed that the faulty plug socket had been fixed and plugged in her iPad to charge.  The plug socket had not been fixed, however, and Taylor received a huge electric shock.  Taylor later died in hospital.  

Holly, Ben and Reg attended the exhibition.  They all work for a large business that supplies furniture to hotels.  At the exhibition, Reg drank nearly half a bottle of whiskey.  Whilst the three coworkers waited for a taxi, Reg went to grab some food from a fast food restaurant nearby.  Reg came back to find Ben and Holly kissing.  Reg was jealous. He lunged at Ben and pinned him against a wall.  Ben punched Reg in the face.  Reg fell to the floor.  Reg stood up, grabbed a penknife he kept in his pocket and went to stab Ben in the leg, however, he stabbed Holly in the thigh instead.  The stab wound caused Holly to bleed profusely.  Holly was rushed to hospital where she required lifesaving surgery.  The doctors informed her family that she would need medication for life as a result of her injuries.  

Part B: Offences Against Property

After visiting Holly in hospital the following day, Ben was furious. Seeking revenge, he went to Reg’s house and cut the brakes on Reg’s car.  Ben then went home.  He arrived home to find his flat-mate, Kate, arguing with her girlfriend Emerald. Kate had found flirty text messages on Emerald’s phone from Emerald’s ex-girlfriend, Helen.  Emerald eventually gave up trying to explain the text messages away and told Kate that she had been having an affair with Helen.   Kate picked up a lampshade with a heavy stone base in the hallway and swung it at Emerald’s head. This stone base hit Emerald, knocking her unconscious. Ben picked up Emerald and carried her to his car and drove her to the hospital.  Ben got lost on the way to the hospital, causing Emerald’s condition to deteriorate.  Emerald later died.  Doctors told her family that Emerald suffered from haemophilia, which complicated her injuries.  

 The following day, Reg drove his car to work.  As expected, his brakes failed.  Reg crashed his car into a lamppost.  Reg died as a result of his injuries.

Consider the various offences against the person that may have taken place, and any possible defences.

Tom and Fred share a flat together.  Their electricity bill for the month totals £100.  Both men contribute equally to paying bills. Tom gives Fred £50 to pay for the electricity bill.  Fred takes the money, but on the way to pay the bill decides to go use the money to buy his girlfriend, Violet a birthday present.  On the way home, Fred realises that he needs to quickly raise some money. He sees a young man with an iPod waiting at the bus stop.  Fred runs up to the man, punches him in the face, and pulls the IPod from his hands. 

Trixie receives a phone call from Barbara.  Barbara tells Trixie that she wants her to set fire to her ex-boyfriend, Joe’s house. Trixie has long known that Barbara works for a local drug dealer, Saint, and, on occasion, Trixie has undertaken jobs for Saint too. Trixie has also enjoyed the financial proceeds of Barbara’s work; going on exotic holidays Barbara has paid for. Trixie refuses at first, telling Barbara that it is “too big of a job.”  Barbara then tells Trixie that if she doesn’t do the job she will call the hospital where Trixie works as a nurse and tell them about the previous jobs Trixie had undertaken for Saint.  Scared she might lose her job, Trixie agrees. Later that night Trixie goes to Joe’s house and douses the front door with gasoline.  She then sets fire to the door.  Joe is inside the house but escapes unharmed.

Patsy is angry at Delia for losing her designer watch on a night out. Patsy goes to Delia’s apartment, uses the key Delia gave her to enter, and spray paints the words “DON’T LOSE STUFF THAT DOESN’T BELONG TO YOU” on Delia’s hallway wall.  Delia arrives home and observes the paint on her hallway wall. She immediately goes to Patsy’s house, breaks the kitchen window with a hammer and leans inside. With the hammer still in her hands, Delia grabs Patsy’s DAB radio, which is close to the kitchen sink, and then leaves.

Tom is sleeping on a sofa in the staff lounge of the pub where he works.  Whilst sleep-walking, Tom uses a board marker pen to draw shapes on the lounge carpet.  Tom’s boss, Cynthia, has to pay £300 to have the carpet professionally cleaned and the pen stains removed.  

Trixie is running round her local golf course.  Knowing Tom likes to play golf, she searches in the bushes around the golf course for lost golf balls to give to Tom.  She finds 10 balls and puts them in her backpack. On the way home, Trixie runs by Patsy’s house.  She notices smoke coming from Patsy’s garage.  Trixie opens the garage door to find that the tumble dryer has caught on fire.  Trixie uses water from a garden hose to put out the fire.  However the water irreparably damages an antique painting Patsy was storing in her garage.  

Consider the various offences against property that may have taken place, and any possible defences.

Part A: Offences Against the Person

Issue 1.  Anthony and Heather are the owners of the hotel room the issue is whether they were negligent by not repairing the faulty socket leading to electrocution and death of Taylor.

Issue 2. Who is liable for the visitors of the band, Larry pulling Francis chair, what legal liabilities arising

An occupier is defined as a person who controls a premise, occupies it or controls land concerning anyone occupying it and the dangers presented due to the state of the premises or the land. The occupiers’ duty might include putting up signs to warn tenants and to alert anyone of any risks. This was established in the case of Edwards v London Borough of Sutton 2016, where the court held that occupiers need to exercise care which is reasonable to ensure that visitors are safe and all accidents are prevented.

Occupiers liability is the duty owed by a landlord to the tenant. The landlord is responsible for keeping common areas in a safe condition for the intended use. Such areas may include hallways, parking areas, and sidewalk. The landlord owes a duty of care to invitees or licenses a duty of care in regards to the areas maintained by them including the sidewalk, hallways, and entry. If a plaintiff claims that injury was caused by landlord's failure to repair a condition which was defective, they ought to prove that the landlord knew. If the landlord did not know, by using reasonable care, they ought to have known and had enough time to repair the condition. The plaintiff cannot establish that the landlord acted negligently if the landlord did not have enough constructive notice.

When premises are rented out or leased for public or semipublic purposes, the landlord is liable for injuries caused due to the unsafe condition. This is only when the landlord knows the unsafe condition. The tenant is liable for torts by the tenant's and tenant's visitors. If the injuries sustained were caused by the tenant's actions, the landlord is not liable. If a dangerously defective condition is also caused by a tenant leading to injury, the landlord is not liable. If the tenants' negligence leads to injury, the tenant is liable for the injuries caused by their negligence. A tenant can also be liable for defects within areas within their control.

The landlord ought to ensure tenants are safe, in the case of Anthony and Heather who are the owners of Yorkshire Cardinal Hotel. They both informed by the hotel guest about the plug socket which was sparking electricity. They had sufficient time to repair the socket since the faulty socket was within their knowledge. On their part, Anthony and Heather called the electrician, Danny, whom on his way collided with Landon and the tray of drinks got him covered with orange juice. He went to change and forgot about repairing the faulty electricity. The landlords failed to inform Taylor sufficiently, on the progress of the repair and Danny also failed to inform the landlords on the progress of the report after telling them he will report right away.

Part B: Offences Against Property

Conclusion

Anthony, Heather, and Danny are jointly liable to the injuries and death of Taylor. They are liable in tort for causing her electrocution; they owed her a duty of care to inform her thoroughly that she should not use the socket because it had not been repaired. Anthony and Heather had the duty to follow up and inspect the socket to ensure it had been thoroughly repaired and it was fit for use. If they had followed up, they would be in a position to know whether Danny showed up for the job, hence adequately inform Taylor of possible injuries. On the other hand, Danny owed Anthony and Heather a duty to inform them that he was not able to arrive and make the necessary repair. Therefore, a suit can be brought against all of them for tort leading to injuries and later died. They can also be charged with manslaughter If tortuous liability is established.

When Frances pulls away Larry's chair, Larry falls down; he is not injured. In this case, if Larry got injured, Frances will be held liable. This action is unforeseeable, as the pulling of a chair depends on what Frances was thinking. This is beyond Anthony's action. Even though Frances was playful, in case an injury occurred, he would be liable in tort because he caused foreseeable harm to Larry. He owes a duty of care to Larry to ensure that he does not engage in any actions which can foreseeably lead to any injuries. Therefore, tenant's liability is applicable in this case, where any actions leading to injury are caused by the tenant.

Whether Brook is liable for assault after kicking Amanda

At the exhibition, at some point, Brook kicks Amanda causing her to have a split lip

According to Singapore's regulations, a person causes criminal assault on another person, when they use any force on them without consent. A person is said to cause criminal force when they use force or intend to use such force when they know it will cause annoyance, injury or fear. This is provided for in the Penal Code of Singapore in section 350 and 351. Fault element for qualifying force is that one intentionally uses force, knowing that it is likely to lead to injury annoyance or fear. There has to be the physical element leading to injury and fault element, where such force would be deemed criminal. When a person uses criminal force on another person, they are liable for three months’ imprisonment or a fine of $1500.

In the case of Brook and Amanda, Brook uses criminal force on Amanda, leading to a burst lip. Brook kicks Amanda at some point, and as a result, Amanda sustains a busted lip. The force did not consent as we see Amanda's boyfriend yelling at Brook that she will need stitches if Brook came near them again. They were hired Actors, but at this point, it does not appear as if it was an Act which led to the injury. If the injury occurred while they were Acting, Vicarious liability would be applicable, where the employer, in this case, Anthony would be liable for the actions of Brook, this is not a friendly situation, hence Amanda can file charges against Brook for assault, and Brook will be held liable for his actions as provided in the Singapore Penal Code.

Was there sexual assault between Brooke and Lou, when she mistook him for Vernon

Sexual assault according to Singapore regulations is penetrating anyone without their consent. According to the penal code, sexual assault is defined as any man penetrating a woman without their consent or when they are under the age of 14 years under section 375 and is punishable with a term of up to 20 years.

The qualifying factor of sexual assault, in this case, is consent, and underage- Brook consents and she is not underage, and a strict application of the Act will mean she cannot bring charges against Lou. It is hard to claim lack of knowledge of the other party on the part of Brook since it is hard to determine her state of mind and the confusion which occurred at the moment. On the part of Lou, he might defend himself and say that she asked him to lay with her and she consented, and she did not know whether she had confused him with the brother, so qualification of charges might be construed by the court accordingly.

Whether Ben is guilty of Murder and whether Kate is guilty of manslaughter.

The chain of causation can be established using the but for the test, where there can be factual or legal causation. The test usually asks whether if the defendants' action would not have taken place, will the injury occur. If no answers the question, then it means that the defendant is liable. This is a test of necessity, and it is a very important test. Factual causation usually shows a chain of causation when no complicating factors do not exist. When complicating factors exist, legal causation is used to establish a chain of causation.  Legal causation is used to show a chain of causation where there are complicating factors.

When establishing legal causation, certain factors need to be put into consideration. One is that the action of the defendant was a substantial cause. The defendant's action must have significantly led to the cause. The courts have held that the cause needs to be significant not necessarily substantial in the case of Kennedy No 2(2007). The result of the harm of the victim must have resulted from a culpable Act. The action must make the defendant culpable in law, and they would be held liable. In R v Dollaway (1847), a driver who was driving a cart in public road runs over a child who runs across the road. The driver was not furiously driving the cart when the child ran across. He is not found guilty of manslaughter unless he was in a position to save the child and was driving with reins in his hand.

Principles of foreseeability are applied to show how an intervening-act will be taken to be breaking the chain of causation. Medical intervention sometimes breaks the act of causation, if the intervening act of doctors contributes to the death of the victim.

Also, victim must be taken as they were found; the thin skull rule. The rule applies whether the defendant knew the condition of the victim or not. It does not matter whether an action was intended, if the defendant hits the victim leading to a serious injury, whether intended or not they are still liable.

When Kate picked a lampstand and swung it on Emerald’s head, the stone base hit Emerald unconscious. This led to complication of injuries later when it was discovered that Emerald suffered from Hemophilia. When Ben was also taking Emerald to hospital, he delayed which worsened Emerald’s condition. Kate is liable for Emerald’s condition even though there was a chain of causation. Ben’s delays worsen the situation, but the thin skull rule applies, where despite the victim having have had the hemophilic condition, Kate is till liable for the injury and the condition Emerald finds herself in. The doctors in this case do not break the chai of causation, but Ben does.

In this case, Reg found Ben and Holly kissing, and he gets mad as a result he punches Reg into the face. Ben later gets furious with Reg and cut Reg’s car breaks which in turn later led to him crushing into a lamp post. He crushed due to break failure, and consequently led to his death. Here there is a chain of causation, which regardless leads to the death of Reg. Ben cuts the breaks which directly leads to his death, and there is no intervening Act. In this case, Ben had the Mens rea and the actus reus which led to Reagans death. It is at the discretion of the court to decide whether he will be charged with manslaughter or first degree murder. On his part, Ben can use crime of passion to defend himself, but it will be upon the courts discretion.

When Reg stabbed Holly, he was not intending to stab her as he was intending to stab Ben. Intention is irrelevant because strict liability crimes, require only the action to take place for him to be accused. As discussed above, Reg causes grievous bodily harm to Holly, which leads to a condition which she has to treat for a life time. Holly can charge Reg for assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. Reg can also be liable for the condition by Holly through causation, because his actions eventually lead to the lifetime treatment. He can say that the doctors broke the chain of causation, but applying the test, if his actions did not lead to Holly’s injury, her permanent condition would not be there as well.

Stealing

Tom and Fred share a flat together, when Tom gives $50 to pay the electricity bill, Fred uses the money on his girlfriend. When Fred realizes he needs money, he pulls an iPod form a man's hand and punches him on his face.

Under the Singapore Penal code section 356, snatching a phone is a crime of theft and whoever does that faces an imprisonment term of between one to seven years.

When Fred steals and Ipod, he is guilty of theft by snatching the phone of the other person which is punishable by law. Obtaining money by false pretense is also punishable by law. This is obtaining money under false representation which the thief knows to be a lie. In the case of Fred, he obtains money from his roommate to pay their shared bills, and he does not use the money as intended, he also runs the risk of being charged for obtaining money through false pretense.

Conclusion

The defendant might argue, that he stole as a necessity. However, this might not be applicable in this situation. In the case of Baender v Barnett a prison had a fire break out and the inmates had to escape to run away from the fire, because death was imminent. When they broke out of their cells, they used the defense of necessity, sighting that they ought not to be convicted because it was necessary for them to break out. The law recognizes that sometimes people are faced with overwhelming circumstances to the extent that they have to break the law, in this case, breaking out of a maximum security prison. Necessity requires that a person does a certain act to avoid greater evil caused by natural circumstances. For a defense of necessity to apply, someone ought to believe that they are the imminent threat or need to act in a certain way. Necessity can be used as a justification when a person, the defendant is not found culpable when under different circumstances they could be found culpable. With the defense of necessity there will always be a prima facie violation of the law.

In the case of Fred, necessity does not qualify as a defense because he was not forced by any natural circumstances to commit the crime of theft. He was not pushed to the wall, he was just ill-mannered and he is guilty of theft. He needed money, but that is not sufficient to justify his deeds. Everyone needs money and if everyone steals for such needs, then it will open floodgates where people commit crimes and excuse themselves using a necessity.

Issue- whether Trixie is liable for arson. What are Barbara's liabilities

Trixie calls Barbara and asks her to set fire on her ex-boyfriend's house, failure to which she will report about the previous jobs she had undertaken for Saint in dealing with drugs. Trixie agrees so that she does not lose her job. She later goes to Joe's house and uses gasoline to set it on fire. Joe is in the house but manages to escape without harm.

Under section 425, whoever with intent causes wrongful damage of property, or wrongful loss of property is liable for mischief. Sometimes intention is not enough, but knowing that they are likely to cause wrongful or damage property makes them liable for mischief. 427, states that causing mischief leading to loss is punishable with a term of up to 5 years of imprisonment.

Criminal liability is a complex subject but aims to curb even those who are not the actual perpetrators of the crime. Criminal offences sometimes have more than one participant. There could be joint participants, one committing the actual crime and other for aiding and abetting, the principal offender.  Generally, a person who counsels, procures or commission, aid and abet the principle offender will be charged as the principal offender.

Trixie under the fear that Barbara will expose her, commits arson and burns Barbara's ex-boyfriend's house. Joe is almost caught but he escapes. Barbara is liable for aiding, abetting, procuring and even blackmailing Barbara. Barbara on the other hand is liable for arson, which is a crime of mischief and destruction of Joe's property punishable by law. They both become principal offenders of the crime, but Barbara stands a chance of acquittal if she can prove duress.

Conclusion

At prima facie, Trixie is guilty of Arson, and perhaps attempted manslaughter. However, she can use the defense of duress to defend her actions, which she was not willing to undertake. Duress can be used as a defense for defendants who were forced to commit crimes. The courts use the free will to determine, whether the defendants are culpable. The defendant needs to be deprived the free will to want to commit the offence hence making them not legally responsible. For a defense of duress to qualify, four elements are necessary, which include a threat to serious bodily harm or death, the threat should be immediate and imminent, the defendant must have created a reasonable fear and the defendant should not have a means of escaping the threatening situation unless they commit a crime. When it comes to homicide cases however, the threat of duress has not been welcomed in many states. Sometimes having a reasonable opportunity to escape is looked at by the courts, and in this case, Barbara had time to report to the police, so that Barbara is reprimanded and prevents the crime from happening,

In the case of Trixie, the court will decide based on their discretion, this is because Trixie qualifies on the grounds of reasonable fear, immediate and imminent threat, and the crime was the only solution to escaping the blackmail. However, Trixie does not qualify when it comes to having being threatened with imminent fear or death. Therefore, depending on the court's discretion Trixie might still be held liable for arson, and attempted death. Barbara will also be charged as if she is the one who committed the crime with Barbara.

Patsy is angry at Delia for losing her watch. Patsy goes to Delia's house and uses spray paint TO write on the wall of Delia "DO NOT lose STUFF THAT does NOT BELONG TO YOU". When Delia arrives and observes the wall, she sees the paint she goes to Patsy's house and breaks her window with a hammer and picks her DAB radio, then leaves.

Section 455 of the Singapore Penal code provides that causing wrongful damage or loss to a person's, property or diminishes or destroys the property's value diminishes its utility is liable for mischief. It is sufficient for a person to know they are causing wrongful damage on the property. Section 441, 444, and 445 makes it illegal for a person to enter into another person's property unlawfully and remains there or trespassing or if a person makes an entrance themselves to commit a crime, they will be deemed to have committed house-breaking. 378, provides taking a movable property out of the owners' possession without their consent, is theft.

When a person willfully injures another person's property, it will be considered malicious damage of property; including spray painting. It encompasses a wide array of criminal behavior including vandalism and illegal removal of property. Vandalism includes removing or even defacing a person's property without their permission. Broken windows and graffiti fall into this category. All damages to property can be punished by fines, a jail term or both.

Pasty and Deila, by painting Pasty's house, she is guilty of vandalism of property. She defaces Deila's house by spraying it with paint to express her disapproval of how she lost her watch. On the other hand Deila also reacts from the painting and goes to Pasty's house, she breaks and enters vandalizing her property while at the same time guilty of theft, stealing her DAB radio without her consent.

Conclusion

Both parties are liable for vandalism, but Daila is also liable for breaking and stealing. Pasty uses a key given to her by Daila, hence she had consented to access her house, because Daila gave her the key andshe was still aware that Daila could access her house anytime. Pasty can be liable for damages and at the same time can be charged with vandalism as a misdemeanor. Daila the other hand is liable for theft, because she broke the windows and accessed Pasty's house without her consent.

Whether Tom is liable for damage of property and damages

While Tom is sleepwalking in the sofa of the staff lounge for his place of work, he draws shapes on the carpet of the lounge. Consequently, the pen stains and the cleaning of the carpet cost $300.

Section 455 of the Singapore Penal code provides that causing wrongful damage or loss to a person's, property or diminishes or destroys the property's value diminishes its utility is liable for mischief. It is sufficient for a person to know they are causing wrongful damage on the property.

In this case Tom is liable, however he can use the defense of Lucid moments to prevent himself from any liability. Sleepwalking has been used as a defense to a crime before. Massachusetts v. Tirrell In 1846, Albert Tirrell murder case was the first successful case of a waling sleep defense. After his advocate proved that he was a chronic sleepwalker, he was acquitted of the crime of murder. Sleepwalkers have parasomnias where they act involuntarily while they are asleep. Unfortunately, sometimes parasomnias lead to reckless actions even self-injury. In Fain v. Commonwealth, a man had fallen asleep in the lobby of a Kentucky hotel, and when he was taped so he could wake up, he removed a gun and shot the man three times. The shooter was found guilty of manslaughter but on appeal, he was acquitted.in the case of Tom, he may not be held liable, because it was involuntary during parasomnia.

Whether Trixie is criminally liable for destroying the antique belonging to Paty

While Trixie is running around her golf course, she searches for balls so that she can give Tom. On her way home she passes by Patsy's house and notices smoke coming out. When she opens the door she finds that the tumble drier is on fire. She uses water from the garden hose to put the fire off. The water damages the antique painting patsy was storing in the garage.

Traditionally, we have seen that for a person to be held culpable, both actus reus and men's rea ought to be present.  This coupled by the conduct, makes one liable for a criminal offense. Parliament has over time creates strict liability offenses which only require the actus reus to be present even with the absence of mens-rea. In the case of R v Deyemi, the court found that the defendant who thought the firearm was torch was irrelevant. In Unsworth v DPP, the defendant had a lawful excuse of damaging the neighbors' tree by cutting the branches which were blocking light from reaching him, hence he had a legitimate reason. In Morphitis v Salmon (1990), the defendant left pieces of a barrier but left whole parts in the same location. The dismantling of the barrier was enough for him to be charged with criminal damage of property, even if he did not carry the undamaged pieces. For the prosecution to prove criminal liability both actus reus and men's rea should be proven Libet, Benjamin. Conscious will and responsibility: A tribute to Benjamin Libet. Oxford University Press, 2011.

From the scenario above, we see that Trixie is trying to save Patsy's garage and the property when water goes to the antique painting. She intended to stop the fire from the parking, but she ends up destroying the antique picture. She has the actus reus, but her intention was not to damage Trixie's antique painting. Therefore, the prosecution has the burden of proofing that mens rea, which makes her culpable was present. Also, she was intervening to prevent fire from destroying the whole garage even the antique. She can defend herself by even saying, if she had not poured water on the garage, the antique would still have been destroyed by fire.

References

Case laws

Edwards v Sutton LBC [2016] EWCA Civ 1005 Kennedy No 2(2007)

R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273.

v Deyemi and Edwards. 345 (n.d)

Baender v. Barnett :: 255 U.S. 224 (1921)

Fain v. Commonwealth, 154 S.W.2d 553, 287 Ky. 507 (1941)

Massachusetts v. Tirrell. In (1846),

Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48

Unsworth v DPP (2010] EWHC 3037

Legislations

The penal code CAP 224 (Singapore)

Books

Abood, Richard R. Pharmacy Practice and The Law (book). (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2012).

Becker, John C. "Landowner or occupier liability for personal injuries and recreational use statutes: How effective is the protection." (Ind. L. Rev. 24 (990): 1587.

Bertelsen, Preben. "Intentional activity and free will as core concepts in criminal law and psychology." (Theory & Psychology 22.1 2012): 46-66.

Dressler, Joshua, Frank R. Strong, and Michael E. Moritz. Understanding criminal law.(M. Bender, 1987).

Dyson, Matthew, ed. Unravelling tort and crime. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).

Eigen, Joel Peter. Unconscious crime: Mental absence and criminal responsibility in Victorian London. (JHU Press, 2003).

Emanuel, Steven, and James J. Rigos. Multistate Perfomance Test (Mpt) Review 2008-2009. (Aspen Publishers Online, 2007).

Ferrell III, Richard L. "Emerging Trends in Premises Liability Law: Ohio's Latest Modification Continues to Chip Away at Bedrock Principles." (Ohio NUL Rev. 21 1994): 1121.

Foster, William F. "OUTDOOR PURSUITS PROGRAMMING: LEGAL LIABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT (Author: Glenda Hanna)." (McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill 27.002 1992).

Hall, Jerome. "Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts: II." (Colum. L. Rev. 43 1943): 967.

Hanna, Glenda. Outdoor pursuits programming: Legal liability and risk management. (University of Alberta, 1991).

Kalven Jr, Harry. "Privacy in tort law--were Warren and Brandeis wrong." (Law & Contemp. Probs. 31 1966): 326.

Kothare, Sanjeev V., and Anna Ivanenko, eds. Parasomnias: clinical characteristics and treatment. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).

Libet, Benjamin. Conscious will and responsibility: A tribute to Benjamin Libet. (Oxford University Press, 2011).

Marchuk, Iryna. Fundamental Concept of Crime in International Criminal Law.( Springer, 2015).

Marcus, Paul. The entrapment defense. (LexisNexis, 2015).

Ormerod, David C., et al. Smith and Hogan's criminal law. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2015).

Pillsbury, Samuel H. Judging evil: Rethinking the law of murder and manslaughter. (NYU Press, 2000).

Pressman, Mark R., et al. "Alcohol?induced sleepwalking or confusional arousal as a defense to criminal behavior: a review of scientific evidence, methods and forensic considerations." (Journal of sleep research 16.2 2007): 198-212.

Simester, Andrew P., et al. Simester and Sullivan's criminal law: theory and doctrine. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016).