Jessie vs. Kelly: The Case Study

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Rule of law
Rules and facts
Argument
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Kelly was innocent as there was no immediacy in the offence that was being subjected against her. According to the details which have been given in this case, for there to be an actus Reus there was supposed to be some result which has not been established considering that the plaintiff scampered for safety without any move from the defendant. From the details of the case, Kelly sent her a picture message with a clenched fist. She also met her at the Max and displayed the same gesture though she did not get physically apprehend her.

Rule of law

According to the criminal justice act 1988, section 39, assault and all the elements of assault are set out clearly under the case law. This offence carries out a punishment which does not exceed a six months imprisonment. According to the House of Lords an offence that results in an assault is committed when “the defendant, due to recklessness or intention causes apprehension of immediate and also unlawful personal violence to the victim” (California Superior Courts et al., 1918). In this case, the actus reus that must be met for a case to qualify as an assault case is for the victim to apprehend, instance of personal violence, unlawfulness and immediacy (R v Meade and Belt, 1823).

Rules and facts

In determining this case, we should look at the rule of law and the facts of the case to determine the applicability of the rule of law in this case. The instances are as outlined below;

There was no conduct or result by Kelly that resulted to an assault. Kelly only clenched her fist and looked at the direction of Jessie and additionally moved one step. There is no point that can prove that she was actually moving to hit Jessie or not
Despite the words that she sent on the text message, no words could be equated to an act of assault
There was no immediacy the moment that Jessie ran away from the max as Kelly was in the other end of the max
There was no personal violence that was involved in this case and so it could not result in assault.
Jessie ran out of fear but not out of any violence inflicted on her or about to be inflicted on her by Kelly.

Argument

Looking at the facts of the above case it is evident that Kelly has no case to answer as all that she did was to warn Jessie against getting into her relationship with the boyfriend. She was only infuriated by the kiss and thus reacted which does not mean that she assaulted Jessie. She however cannot be sued for assault as there was no immediacy in the act (R v Constanza, 1997). The words that she wrote on the message cannot be taken for assault as they portrayed personal violence in no way (R v Ireland, 1997). For the reasons stated, I would urge my fellow contestants to own up defeat and join me in the claim that Kelly is innocent cannot be sued for assault.

Conclusion

This paper has clearly indicated the rule of the law and the facts behind the case of Jessie vs. Kelly. It has proven that the facts behind the case render it inadmissible and that the defendant cannot be sued by the plaintiff. There is a strong argument in this debate that aims at convincing the opposing side of the innocence of Kelly.

References

California Superior Courts et al. (1918) The Pacific reporter, volume 169. California: West Pub. Co.

R v Constanza (1997) Crim LR 576.

R v Ireland (1997) 3 WLR 534 House of Lords.

R v Meade and Belt (1823) 1 Lew. C. C. 184.

Click Here To Order Now!

Jessie vs. Kelly: The Case Study

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)