Any lawyers out there?

[JenA]

Can adults just throw a glass of water on someone whenever they want?

[sol]

Funnily enough my uncle just sent me a book on where people stand in terms of law and their rights, but I havent read it yet so I dont know - I very much doubt that it would be classified as physical abuse though, water is hardly going to hurt her :laugh:

[JakeyBoy]

What kind of question is that

[nik_fatw]

Originally posted by JenA
Can adults just throw a glass of water on someone whenever they want?

Strange you should post this as concidered doing so as well!
It's a good question!

Although I dont know the answer for sure, I would imagine if it can be proved, and of course it can, then it would be assault! In which case, should Suzie wish to take it further I would imagine she has a perfect case.

Although I think Grace is an awful person, I would hope it wouldnt even enter Suzie's head to do so!!

But it would serve Grace right if she did!! :joker:

Nik

[nik_fatw]

Originally posted by JakeyBoy
What kind of question is that

A good one!

[GlitterEyes]

I don't think it would stand up in court due to the nature of how bb works.

[nik_fatw]

Originally posted by GlitterEyes
I don't think it would stand up in court due to the nature of how bb works.

BB aint above the law.....

[sol]

I cant see how, throwing water at someone isn't exactly going to harm them.

[Slezer]

To be honest if you're going to go into Big Brother you cant expect luxuary and everybody you dont like to just talk about you behind your back. Some people think they have the right to go into big brother and do nothing and get waited hand and foot on. Susie got water dashed at her so what it was partly her fault Grace was going and she was very snobby toward Grace as Grace was leaving she didnt go to say goodbye she just stay sat.

[GlitterEyes]

Originally posted by nik_fatw
Originally posted by GlitterEyes
I don't think it would stand up in court due to the nature of how bb works.

BB aint above the law.....

No but because it was just water and it caused no long term harm mentally or physically nothing would happen. If it was paint or something like hot tea which scalded her then that would be assault. Looking at the amount of money it would cost aswell just wouldn't be worth persueing.

[Chrizzle]

Science threw water over someone, no-one did anything about that
and Maxwell, and Craig

[GlitterEyes]

Plus kids throw water bombs every summer and nothing happens since it is water and there is no evidence in about 10mins when it has dried lol. If it was paint then the damage would stay and stain her clothes which she could claim damage for or if paint got in her hair then its another story.

[Chrizzle]

Yeah agreed :thumbs:

[JakeyBoy]

Originally posted by GlitterEyes
Plus kids throw water bombs every summer and nothing happens since it is water and there is no evidence in about 10mins when it has dried lol. If it was paint then the damage would stay and stain her clothes which she could claim damage for or if paint got in her hair then its another story.

Exactly, good point

[JakeyBoy]

Originally posted by nik_fatw
Originally posted by JakeyBoy
What kind of question is that

A good one!

Obviously not!

[Lance]

Originally posted by Chrizzle
Science threw water over someone, no-one did anything about that
and Maxwell, and Craig

That's what I thought. Science was reprimanded for his behaviour by BB though.

I suppose they would have done the same to Grace but they could hardly tell her to go to the DR as she was about to leave.:hugesmile:

[CJ4Life]

Originally posted by JakeyBoy
What kind of question is that

Are you still here?

[booty-full]

Hey guys ----- not a lawyer but a 2nd year Law student. Technically what Grace did IS a criminal offence and it IS ASSAULT!!

Unfortunately the layman believes assault to involve permanent harm when in actual fact this is not the case at all!!!!

The throwing of water seems to be a common technical assault - a section 39 offence. There are 2 types of assault under this heading;common assault and battery. Common Assault is merely where the victim FEARS IMMINENT FORCE, whereas a battery can be A MERE TOUCH!! Therefore the throwing of water and the contact with Suzie could amount to a battery - there is a famous case involving a police officer who was spat on and this amounted to a battery despite the fact that it did not cause her harm.
The water WAS thrown maliciously.

The types of assault that you guys are mistaking for the only kind of assault are:
section 49 Actual Bodily Harm which is where the skin is broken or severe bruising
section 21 Grievous Bodily Harm which is more serious as a broken bone for example i.e. kicking someone in the head, breaking ribs etc street fights. This is done recklessly and without intent
Section 18 Grievous Bodily Harm which is the same type of harm as above however performed with intent. To prove that a person intended section 18 GBH is enough to convict them of murder if the person dies

HOPE THIS CLEARS ALL OF THE MESS UP!!! Obviously cases can be dropped through lack of evidence or if the person does not wish to press charges. The police may also choose to charge a person with a lesser offence i.e. someone that has committed GBH section 21 could have it lessened to section 49 ABH if the crown prosecution service thought that a conviction was more likely under this heading.

I believe the maximum sentence for Common technical assault (i.e. common assault or battery) to be 6 months


Oh Science and Maxwell...... the case would be the same here

[JenA]

So lets say hypothetically, someone is walking down the street and they notice hey, isnt that Grace from Big Brother? She's famous, shes been on tv, they want to say hi to her. Its summer time so that person has a cup of ice water. Hypothetically if that person runs to her and trips and the cup is emptied on to her. Could a person get 6 months for that?

[booty-full]

no of course not. The person at fault has to have maliciously or intentionally performed the act. You cannot be criminally liable for an accident such as you described with a section 39 offence.

[Ruth]

Originally posted by GlitterEyes
I don't think it would stand up in court due to the nature of how bb works.

I think it would stand up in court! It's all captured on camera. It would probably be classed as a common assault.

[GlitterEyes]

Originally posted by Ruth
Originally posted by GlitterEyes
I don't think it would stand up in court due to the nature of how bb works.

I think it would stand up in court! It's all captured on camera. It would probably be classed as a common assault.

But did it cause any long term damage or effect the way Susie lives? If it was hot tea and she was scalded then sure that is something that would stand up better but the fact it was water would make it not worth all the hassle.

[mimmie]

In the BB house, yes. Surprised more of them don't try it. I doubt that BB would have thrown her out even if she had suvived the eviction. Lets face it, fans she might of lacked, but her viewing figures were never a problem.

[GlitterEyes]

Plus the fact Lisa threw a bike AGRESSIVELY and VICIOUSLY at the housemates has more ground for a court than throwing water. Lisa threw it not caring where it would end up in a temper and how she is still in the house is stupid.

[booty-full]

Originally posted by GlitterEyes
Originally posted by Ruth
Originally posted by GlitterEyes
I don't think it would stand up in court due to the nature of how bb works.

I think it would stand up in court! It's all captured on camera. It would probably be classed as a common assault.

But did it cause any long term damage or effect the way Susie lives? If it was hot tea and she was scalded then sure that is something that would stand up better but the fact it was water would make it not worth all the hassle.


Have you not already made a similar post???? It doesn't matter whether or not lasting damage is caused!!!! Read my previous post. The lowest form of assault, common assault, is fearing imminent force and you do not even have to have contact with the person. Battery, the next form of assault, is whereby there is a mere touch and the actor has acted maliciously. That is the law...there does not have to be permanent damage that is a load of tosh!!!

The law is as I stated it.. however this does not mean that Grace would be prosecuted as I also explained that it depends whether the person presses charges or if the crown prosecution service think a conviction is likely as they will not pursue a case otherwise. Although an offence has been committed it may not be worth their while.

Oh, and we are talking Criminal Court here.
Civil Court is an entirely different matter as this is where the two parties pay for their own costs and the test is easier to fulfil than in criminal courts. Civil court is for seeking compensation, criminal court is for punishment

[GlitterEyes]

But we all know there are many flaws in Uk laws. Life doesn't mean life. Weirdo's getting out for "good behaviour" purleassee the "Law" in this country and some other places are totally pathetic.
She couldn't even claim anything for her clothes since they were big brothers clothes anyway from the golden task I think.

[booty-full]

Look, whatever I say you are obviously going to refute. I am a law student and I am merely stating the current law which theoretically states that an assault took place. JenA asked if anyone knew so thats why I gave the info!!

The law does have its flaws but it is right that people that assault others should be reprimanded. When you study the law in depth it is more obvious why such "wierdos" get out early and such. The layman does not get the whole truth however I have studied the facts of such cases - such facts are not released to newspapers. The law is not pathetic but could do with some improvement. I do not feel that I can adequately comment on the state of the law yet and I am going into second year of a pure law degree. Therefore it is hard for normal people to adequately comment on a topic that they do not know.

I think that basic law should be taught in schools as there are so many things that people do not know about which can make it harder for them in everyday life. I am sure that people would take more caution if they knew some of the stuff that I now know.

[GlitterEyes]

I have experience since a family member has also studied law for the last 7 years or so and yes an assault took place but the fact remains that it would simply be a waste of Grace and Susies time and a waste of court time. There are killers out there, rapists, people who put others in hospital and they are the type of cases that should go to court and not be filled up with meaningless petty assaults. Things like happy slapping are much more serious and can have long term effects on the person.

If you look at Tom Cruise when he got squirted with a water pistol that is showing how a joke can go wrong. I am not disagreeing that is it an assualt because we all seen it I am just saying there are more pressing crimes than chucking water over someone. For me there is alot of red tape surrounding the law and you will no doubt see that in the next few years, how the laws can be twisted and bent so often and nothing is done etc. But anyway thats another subject lol:spin2:

[booty-full]

Lol ah its just earlier in the posts it seems you were refuting that an assault even existed!!!! I also said myself that the CPS could drop a case if a conviction is unlikely. Unfortunately such simple cases are often easier to build and there are more likely to be witnesses yet with serious crimes such as those that you speak of, the police cannot always gain enough evidence to convict....the courts can only do so much.

Law has always been that way (i.e. can be bent etc) although this is not usually done by the Defendants or even the barristers really.....its the judges that make it up and because they can!!!! Look at Lord Denning for goodness sake!!! He made up his own mind and didn't even follow accepted law alot of the time!!! The exisiting law doesn't really change drastically in terms of what is illegal but the tests for proving someone wrong leap from subjective to objective all of the bloody time!!

[GlitterEyes]

Plus you see police officers speeding way over the odds and getting off with a slapped wrist. Police shooting the wrong people and pushing it under the carpet. The list goes on and on. They should change the term "life" for starters not sure what to but life is just wrong:bored:

[booty-full]

Actually it is only called life as an option to the judges - the sentence is then decided as an amount of time up to life - not actually life. But it shoudl be haha. And there is talk of changing the whole Homicide area of the law anyway.

And the police officers thing is a little unfair .. it is only the bad stuff that is in the newspapers, the good stuff never is. In actual fact, and I know, polic officers are more likely to get harsher verdicts when speeding and the such like. This also happens to solicitors!!! The shooting thing is because they are acting in their job and if a judge was to punish for that one instance (when it doesn't exactly happen alot) it sets a precedent for future cases and opens up the floodgates to allow police to be continually punished for shooting the wrong person which is not positive for law enforcement.

I am guessing that you are referring to the London incident...in which case there is a lot of stuff behind that that the public are unaware of.

[GlitterEyes]

The fact that someone can kill someone else and be able to get out of jail in *number here* amount years is totally wrong in my opinion. Life should mean life, I heard that only 50 people in Britain have life meaning life (might have the number wrong but basically a small percentage) and their case will not be looked at after a certain number of years. They are there til they die and thats the way it should be. Realistically though they wouldn't be able to fit everyone who deserves life into the prisons if life meant life.

Yeah was talking about the London thing with the shootings but even though the public are not aware of all the ins and out it remains that an innocent person was killed wrongly. I know there is alot more to cases like that like he ran from the scene but Im sure many guys would do if they seen a number of plain clothed people chasing him. I think people in the Uk tend to highlight petty crimes rather than concentrate on drugs, killing, rapes, serious assaults etc.

[booty-full]

I think that's just a layman view really cus in the papers they highlight such stuff. An awful lot of work goes on behind the scenes for those types of crimes and I know that for a fact. The people that work on them cannot reveal any of the information and the papers on hear the half of it. Sentences fit around the defendants. I agree that in a lot of cases sentences should be longer, of course, but some defendants need help. The criminal law convicts based upon actus reus and mens rea.....if the mens rea isn't there then they are not deemed as culpable hence not punished as much. I.e if someone is insane they need hospital help as they would not have committed the crime if not for their condition.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by booty-full
The layman does not get the whole truth however I have studied the facts of such cases - such facts are not released to newspapers.

What you have said about assault and battery is basically spot on (although whether what Grace did was assault, I'm not so sure. Did Susie really fear imminent force? Grace just walked away once she had put the water on her, it was done very quickly and she said "sorry" as she did it, lol :laugh: It's not comparable with spitting at a policeman. Debatable, but probably would never be prosecuted anyway) but I'm curious as to how you've managed to obtain details on cases that aren't released to the press?? Any juicy details you want to share?

[booty-full]

lol because I am a law student lol, that's why I know the cases etc. The assault stuff is right yea... the imminent force only has to be proven for common assault but not for battery Imminent force doesn't need to be proved for battery.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, battery isn't even in issue with what Grace did.

But how does a law student get details of cases that the press don't?



EDIT: Always one to admit my own mistakes (doesn't happen that often, so I'm happy to admit it when I'm wrong :laugh:)

Quick bit of research revealed:

Pursell v Horn (1838) - throwing water at someone can constitute battery.

I wonder what kind of pathetic saddo presses charges for getting wet. Still it was the 1800's, strange times they were :spin: Why didn't they just settle it with a good old fashioned duel, or pistols at dawn??

[booty-full]

It may actually constitute battery-cannot be common assault as common assault involves no touch so it is battery. But like I have said the CPS probably wouldn't pursue it as conviction may not be easy.

The press doesn't report on the majority of cases so we read about cases they don't. Plus we read the whole judgments through study. Also when law students go on work expo they read case files with all of the info compiled about a case and sign confidentiality agreements so as not to reveal info. One case I read sounded much more mild in the press and had no details about the defendant which may have explained to the public why they did it.

The main issue is not that the press do not hear about the cases but that they don't report on every case they only report on ones that get a reaction hence the public have an unbalanced view of the law, if you get what I mean.

[Slartibartfast]

LOL, so you don't really get details about cases that the press don't? What you're actually saying is that you read the cases that the press don't report on, the same cases that are written up as public documents, freely available to everyone and even available free on websites like Bailii?

Had me worried there, cos the vast majority of court hearings are open to the public (family court and sensitive criminal cases my be heard in a closed court) so I had my doubts when you said you had insider information that no one else does.

[booty-full]

lol actually I did work experience at the Crown Prosecution Service and had insider info there lol!!! I read the whole case files of endless cases and attended court for them...not everything was brought up. Plus reporters cannot report on everything. But yes, predominantely I meant that the general public do not get to hear about all law cases therefore cannot really base an opinion around what they do hear. The cases that tend to be reported are the more shocking or extreme ones. Plus you get things like reporters saying that a particular judge was wrong to decide something controversial and the whole public comment on it when they actually know nothing!!! As if you had been at least in court or read the whole case file at best (i.e. been a lawyer working on it) your view may be different. Also the layman does not always understand the working of the court system and the law.

Cases are available to public in the law reports but even then, how many people sit and read the weekly law reports volume 1 of 1998 for example.....whereas I have no choice.

Hence why I believe that at least basic law should be taught at school - people should have at least a basic understanding of it....well only if what was taught was practical i.e. how to cohabit with someone in a way which means that if you split you don't lose everything lol

[Slartibartfast]

But don't you think if everyone had a better understandng of the legal system, then lawyers' jobs may be under threat.

By keeping the system shrouded in mystery and maintaining a lack of transparency, the lawyers ensure that they keep themselves in existence and can charge exorbitant fees (quite often to the most vunerable in society). And by pretending they're better than the rest of society, and that they have access to information and understanding that the rest of the public don't, not only do they ensure their own job but they ensure that they will always engender hate from the general layman. You can't trust most lawyers as far as you could throw them.

Anyway, we're getting off topic. I amended my post above, it appears that throwing water at someone can constitute battery. I'm disappointed, although to be honest, I'm not surprised our legal system has no sense of humour :bored:

[booty-full]

Oi!!!! Please do not knock me!!! It will not be long before I am a solicitor or a barrister!!!! lol. And lawyers only have a bad name for themselves due to a minority of heartless people ---- like in any profession and in society as a whole. Just because people know something small about law doesn't mean they won't need lawyers as people cannot defend themselves. Yet at the same time I know why people aren't taught.....anyone that has studied sociology knows about the whole Marxist view on that!

[Slartibartfast]

LOL, you aren't a lawyer yet, so I wasn't knocking you!! And not all lawyers are bad, just the ones who lie, cheat and practice in the private sector :wink:

And I hoping that wasn't a veiled knock at Marx. The guy spoke a lot of sense. Communism would work, if it wasn't for the inherent failings in man.

[booty-full]

lol not at all, I respect his views. But I don't think communism would work with Humanity. Not unless we are all wiped out and it started again. There hasn't been a true communist state yet

[Slartibartfast]

Even if we were all wiped out and the human race was started again, it still wouldn't work. Man is inherently corrupt and greedy, combine that with the fact that power corrupts, then giving power to the proletariat is doomed to fail cos some form of ruling class will always take over, and so Communism is doomed.

Lawyers still suck though. :wink:

[booty-full]

I don't think that if the race was wiped out and started again it couldn't work. As we would not be socialised. We are not born with such crappy qualities.....it is all through nurture. However due to the long period over which we have been this way, it appears that such qualities are our nature. If they were our nature we wouldn't have people like ourselves questionning it...or missionary types. Therefore if everything started again but society evolved differently it could work. But I don't know....... it could still go wrong unless we were guided as we may happen to evolve in a selfish way again.

And lawyers do not suck lol!!!!!! A lot of lawyers actually really help people. Charities have lawyers that do formidable work. Also all of those lawyers that are involved in family law, criminal law or who work with people requiring legal aid......they could be paid so much more for commercial or corporate work but choose not to. Most go into law because they genuinely want to help people....they just get corrupted along the way!

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by booty-full
I don't think that if the race was wiped out and started again it couldn't work. As we would not be socialised. We are not born with such crappy qualities.....it is all through nurture. However due to the long period over which we have been this way, it appears that such qualities are our nature. If they were our nature we wouldn't have people like ourselves questionning it...or missionary types. Therefore if everything started again but society evolved differently it could work. But I don't know....... it could still go wrong unless we were guided as we may happen to evolve in a selfish way again.

And lawyers do not suck lol!!!!!! A lot of lawyers actually really help people. Charities have lawyers that do formidable work. Also all of those lawyers that are involved in family law, criminal law or who work with people requiring legal aid......they could be paid so much more for commercial or corporate work but choose not to. Most go into law because they genuinely want to help people....they just get corrupted along the way!

See, thats where we differ, I do believe that man is born inherently flawed, and we all have the crappy qualities within us. It's social conditioning that teaches us not to act on these inherent flaws and not the inverse.

And I'm glad you mentioned those lawyers that do some good work. The Law Centre Federation is one such chairyt that does great work.

But (there had to a but), the Legal Aid system is a joke and is completely open to abuse. And it doesn't provide any help in key areas of law where the most vulnerable people actually need help, like employment tribunals (where a person wants to take an action against their employer), disability appeals, mental health tribunals and immigration/asylum appeals. You get two hours advice under the Green Form scheme and thast about it. Pathetic.

And IMO, most people go into the legal profession to make money and not from any altruistic desires. But you're still a young, aspiring, optimistic law student. It's only a matter of time till the weight of the injustice of the system destroys that valuable optimism. :bored:

[xGemmax]

thats got to be the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. How can it be illegal to throw water over someone? Is it illegal to have water fights? If that was the case then in the summer when someone gets a water gun out and hits someone then they would be prosecuted!

[booty-full]

lol Slart..... you're a nature supporter, I'm leaning towards nurture. But then I had sociology drummed into me for ages so I'm not surprised that I feel that way.lol. Yes I am optimistic at the moment!!! I am going into it to help people. Maybe family law or employment law. Unsure as of yet

[booty-full]

Oh and to answer the pathetic water fight question I refer you to.......

Originally posted by booty-full
Hey guys ----- not a lawyer but a 2nd year Law student. Technically what Grace did IS a criminal offence and it IS ASSAULT!!

Unfortunately the layman believes assault to involve permanent harm when in actual fact this is not the case at all!!!!

The throwing of water seems to be a common technical assault - a section 39 offence. There are 2 types of assault under this heading;common assault and battery. Common Assault is merely where the victim FEARS IMMINENT FORCE, whereas a battery can be A MERE TOUCH!! Therefore the throwing of water and the contact with Suzie could amount to a battery - there is a famous case involving a police officer who was spat on and this amounted to a battery despite the fact that it did not cause her harm.
The water WAS thrown maliciously.

The types of assault that you guys are mistaking for the only kind of assault are:
section 49 Actual Bodily Harm which is where the skin is broken or severe bruising
section 21 Grievous Bodily Harm which is more serious as a broken bone for example i.e. kicking someone in the head, breaking ribs etc street fights. This is done recklessly and without intent
Section 18 Grievous Bodily Harm which is the same type of harm as above however performed with intent. To prove that a person intended section 18 GBH is enough to convict them of murder if the person dies

HOPE THIS CLEARS ALL OF THE MESS UP!!! Obviously cases can be dropped through lack of evidence or if the person does not wish to press charges. The police may also choose to charge a person with a lesser offence i.e. someone that has committed GBH section 21 could have it lessened to section 49 ABH if the crown prosecution service thought that a conviction was more likely under this heading.

I believe the maximum sentence for Common technical assault (i.e. common assault or battery) to be 6 months


Oh Science and Maxwell...... the case would be the same here


I posted ages ago. Obviously the people speaking in this thread are not implying that water fights are against the law.... please do not be so ridiculous!!!

[Slartibartfast]

Good luck in family law, it's a disheartening, soul destroying area of law to work in.

If I was starting off on a law career now, I'd recommend anyone to focus on european law, human rights law and immigration law. Immigration is going to become an increasingly massive issue and if you want to help people, it's a rewarding area to work in.

[booty-full]

lol I know but I'm not sure how long I would last...it sounds shallow but studying it is very boring!!! However, I am doing more EU law next year so I may like it more. I am going to definately do family law as one of my options in my degree and employment law, as they are areas that I am really interested in. I am also interested in criminal law and have a lot of work experience in that area, and family law.