Paper 1

Criminal Liability

Criminal liability arises from criminal actions like theft, dacoity, murder etc. which

causes damage to life and property1. For example, a group of persons breaks-into a

house with an intent to commit dacoity and in the process kill someone. The act of

forced entry and murder are both criminal offences. Such offences are non-cognizable

and would lead to arrest, detention and incarceration.

Obligation is the duty regarding a wrongdoing and for the punishment society

claims for the wrongdoing. Another word for risk is responsibility. This clarifies the

prosaism that a man who has carried out a wrongdoing must "pay her obligation to

society." A wrongdoing is seen as a damage to the general public that has cost it

something (not really in dollar terms) and the criminal brought about the obligation

for that expense. Society represents the obligation by forcing a punishment upon the

criminal, for example, jail time.

A man might be discovered at risk for a wrongdoing if the arraignment demonstrates

that he1

a) carried out the criminal demonstration

b) had the expected expectation to consider her responsible

A demonstration that might be arraigned by the state as per the state's criminal code.A

individual is at risk, or mindful, for a wrongdoing when he or she has acted with

criminal plan, rather than acting incidentally or coming up short on the capacity to act

intentionally.

1Duff, Robin Antony. "Intention, agency and criminal liability: Philosophy of

action and the criminal law." (1990).
 A wrongdoing is an offense against the state, as characterized by each state's

criminal laws. No demonstration is a wrongdoing until the point when it is perceived

all things considered by society and composed into the states' and government

criminal codes. We may think certain demonstrations have dependably been

wrongdoings or are treated as violations all over the place, however that isn't the

situation. Along these lines, a wrongdoing involves definition by the general public in

which a man perpetrates a demonstration; a demonstration is a wrongdoing just if a

state or the national government characterizes it as one1. In many states, violations are

portrayed as either lawful offenses (more genuine wrongdoings) or misdeeds (less

genuine violations, for example, vandalism).

Intention

In criminal law, the term expectation is clarified as the intentional reason and

known exertion, to act in a specific way which isn't allowed by law. As against, the

intention is characterized as the verifiable reason, which actuates a man to do or not to

accomplish something. The aim of a man can be dictated by the utilization of specific

means and the conditions, that brought about the criminal offense. On the other hand,

the rationale is the reason, that drives a man to complete a demonstration or forgo

acting in a particular way. While the expectation is the explicitly characterized

motivation behind the wrongdoing, the thought process is covered up or inferred

reason. At the point when the aim of a man, is the component for joining criminal

risk, it must be demonstrated past sensible uncertainty1. Unexpectedly, the thought

process isn't the essential component for appending culpability, so it require not be

demonstrated.

Vicarious liability
 It is a legal theory invoked to hold one party (the Principal) liable for the

wrongdoing of another party (the Agent) providing the following elements are

established2;

1. Agent is an employee (versus independent contractor) of the Principal;

2. Agent committed a negligent (versus intentional) act which caused harm to

another;

3. The negligent act was committed during the scope of employment (versus a

“frolic");

The following are exceptions to the aforementioned general rule:

1. The agent committed an intentional act under the express or implied

authorization from the Principal to perform the act (ie, a bouncer at a bar

who injures a patron while throwing he/she out);

2. The agent was an independent contractor where the duty assumed is

nondelegable due to public policy considerations:

In the light of the discussion carried above, it is clear that Cassandra possess

criminal liability as her intentions to hurt Derrick were revealed. She could have

saved him by removing her bag that was in her knowledge that it would cause

potential harm to Derrick. Thus, intention of Cassandra towards Derrick makes her

liable for the criminal act2.

Raquel is also found to conduct crime by punching Cassandra in the face who

fell awkwardly and cut her head open on the bar. This involves intention and act from

Raquel that caused potential harm to Cassandra and is liable for the punishment.

Drunk

2 Wasserstrom, Richard A. "Strict liability in the criminal law." Stan. L. Rev. 12 (1959):
731.
 Alcohol is afforded a sort of special status in contemporary culture. It is

considered normal to drink, and it is not unheard of for it to be considered abnormal

not to drink -see, for example, documentary "Royal Problem". As part of a culture

that normalizes drinking, people tend to believe that choosing to drink does not have

negative consequences for most people. More than that, many choose to believe that

the consequences of drinking for most people are actually beneficial.

This is patently untrue and an even cursory survey of the effects of alcohol

would disabuse one of this notion. Everybody knows at least one if not many people

whose lives have been negatively affected by alcohol. Alcohol is an extremely

harmful drug for both users and for society. Whether or not someone fuels behavior

with alcohol or another substance, their behavior and the consequences are their own

responsibility1. They made the choice to drink. They made the choice to act a certain

way.

Anyone else taking responsibility for those actions is fueling their denial and

being codependent. Everyone makes choices. Some better and more sober than others.

No matter what happens, he decided to pick up a glass and drink. If it's a consistent

problem, let the person know you dislike his behavior, then let them go. It had to be

their choice to change their behavior too.

This shows that Rodney who was initially drunk and could not control his

anger after seeing Derrick. However, Rodney did not act in a way that could harm

others but his gestures provoked Derrick to plan an attack on him. He initially asked

Derrick to leave the place or else he could harm him by punching against his palm

showing aggression. This aggression provoked Derrick who then ran after Rodney

and hurt himself by falling on the ground.

 Being dunk does not , in my opinion, leave a person any less responsible for

their actions. They may have have been physically compromised and therefore need

support from friends in order to ensure their physical safety, but they will still be

acting according to their own beliefs and moral system, and therefore should be held

responsible for their actions.

Work Cited

Duff, Robin Antony. "Intention, agency and criminal liability: Philosophy of action

and the criminal law." (1990).

Wasserstrom, Richard A. "Strict liability in the criminal law." Stan. L. Rev. 12 (1959):

731.

Paper 2
Adverse possession is a type of belief in which an individual in possession of

the land being owned by another person may get a title to it, so long as particular

requirements of the common law are fulfilled, and the adverse possessor being in

possession for enough time duration, as explained by the statute of limitations3.

Common Law Requirements

The requirements of the common law have emerged with time and they are

different as per the jurisdictions. Commonly, for a particular adverse possessor to get

a title, his property possession should be3:

1. Continuous-- Continuous property possession must be maintained by the

single adverse possessor. The continuity, however, can be managed

amongst successive adverse possessors if there exist privity amongst them.

3Bouckaert, Boudewijn, and Ben WF Depoorter. "Adverse Possession–Title

Systems." Encyclopedia of Law & Economics (1999).
 2. Hostile--Here, the meaning of “hostile” is not “unfriendly”. Instead, it

shows that the infringes of possession are on the true owner’s rights. If the

real owner gives license or consents to the use of the property by the

adverse possessor, then possession is not considered as hostile and it is also

not termed as adverse possession. Renters never become the adverse

possessors of rented building or property, despite the fact how long they

lived there3.

3. Open and Notorious--There should be anyone’s obvious possession who

would like to look, so as to make it in the notice of real owner that a

particular trespasser is being possessed. With having an adverse possession

claim, a person will not get success if it is kept secret.

4. Actual--Actually, the adverse possessor is in possession of another

individual’s property. For trespass, the real owner owns a cause of action

that must be followed under the statute of limitations.

5. Exclusive--The control of the property is not shared by the adverse

possessor with anyone else until he has privity with his own self. He can

keep other out from the possession, like as he is the real owner.

Recently, a lot of interest has been shown in the claims of adverse possessions

from the clients of the firm. With one of our lawyer, from a TV interview to come to a

tentative conclusion in support of our client refusing the attempt of another party to

adversely possess the property, a number of individuals are facing this issue. In many

latest appellate decisions, initiatives are taken by the court for preventing the claimant

from adversely possessing the land’s parcel. In Aguayo v. Amaro, the court stated that
the attempt of the claimant to adversely possess the property will not become legal

and they will not be the real owner due to their illegal acts 4.

The Aguayos as a couple fulfill their living by adversely possessing someone

else’s property. The Aguayos, in Aguayo, tried to adversely possess another couple’s

property who was its first owner, the Infantes, the last member of them passed away

in the year 1993. Although no will is in hand of Infantes, as no probate proceedings

were initiated by their heirs even a time after their death. Before the probate

proceedings occur, the Aguayos had started occupying their property. Furthermore, a

quitclaim deed is recorded by them from someone having no particular interest in the

property for themselves. Starting in 1999, as a consequence, property tax bills will be

sent to Aguayos by the tax assessors of the county, and Aguayos paid the pending

taxes along with the next 6 year taxes whenever tax becomes due. After fulfilling all

the prerequisites for adverse possession, a lawsuit was file by Aguayos for getting

title to the property. At court trial, it was held by the court that although all

prerequisites were met by Aguayos, they were prohibited from prevailing as they did

all with bad faith by recording the deed intentionally to receive tax bills on their name

instead of received by the actual owners.

On an appeal, the court ruling of the trial was upheld by the court. It was noted by the

appellate court that for adversely possessing the property there are 2 available ways,

one is to claim the property right via a written instrument or a defective deed or by

obeying the provisions of statutory that permit for a planned trespass against that

particular property. While it was acknowledged by the count that the 2nd way appears

to need a wrongful act, the required trespass never means every wrongful act could be

4Ballantine, Henry W. "Title by Adverse Possession." Harvard Law Review 32.2 (1918): 135-
159.
permitted. Here, although the Aguayos intentional trespass was reasonable for adverse

possession, but their quitclaim deed recording act for redirecting the tax statements

mailing address was wrongful. This was the particular case as though for transferring

the title a quitclaim deed is not necessary and also the real owners didn’t make tax

payments for the past 12 years. It was identified by the trial court that,

notwithstanding the wrongful act of Aguayos, they can do all this good faith.

Essentially, both the trial court and appellate court advanced all the contradictory and

conceivable arguments, for denying the Aguayos’ property right4.

Takeaway – While the law of California permits the property’s adverse possession, it

is a really complex proposition and that one on which the system of the court can

frown heavily. Here, very sound legitimate agreements were made by Aguayos that

were not accepted by the court due to its strong opposition for permitting the Aguayos

to obtain that property. Even at the time when the court is having contradictory

holdings, it was opted by the court to allow the defendants, who never visited the

property for many years and even didn’t paid the taxes for more than 12 years, to keep

the property.

Adverse possession & the registered land

As suggested by the statement of Lord Bingham in Pye, there never seems

detailed justification for the requirement of adverse possession in terms of registered

land. In the days before the registration of the unregistered land, the case appears as

the norm, this type of outcome without a confusion be justified as avoiding the

uncertainty that where is the presence of the title of the property. But at what place the

land gets registered it is not easy to check out the justification for a legitimate rule
that impels like currently unfair outcomes and even difficult to know why the party

obtaining the title ought not to be needed to pay all compensation5.

At this point, Lord Bingham is correct that implication of adverse possession to

unregistered and registered land equally can lead to land lost by the innocent land-

owners. The effects of adverse possession of England’s registered land has altered the

given ruling of the Grand Chamber located in ECHR with reference to the Pye case.

This resulted in the formation of the 2002 Land Registration Act. This act resulted in

making it impossible to obtain registered property through adverse possession. The

reason behind this change is the new requirement present in the Act that an individual

has adverse possession of the land of another person should apply for the registry of

land after 10 years.

The outcome of this process is that the registered owner will be then contacted

through the registry and let him know about the application, thus permitting the

property’s registered owner to react and re-develop his claims for the property within

2 years. This is particularly dependent on the fact that the title to the land registered

never requires to solely vest in possession as the real owner can be identified robustly

by merely looking at the registry of land.

Contrary to this, the Ireland situations can be observed in terms of Law

Reform Commission, according to which there ought not to be any kind of distinction

created with reference to the impact of adverse possession on non-registered or the

registered lands. A view that is having the support of section 49 of the 1964

Registration of Title Act. The land registry practice was and would remain, that where

5Stake, Jeffrey Evans. "The uneasy case for adverse possession." Geo. Lj 89
(2000): 2419.
an individual has prohibited the possession right of registered owner, he will be able

to get registered with a particular title to prevailing interest of leasehold, thereby

impact providing such type of squatter the benefit of parliamentary conveyance. The

land registry’s practice is dependant on the word “title” mentioned in the section 49 as

regarding the specific ownership or registered owner’s claim instead of an “interest”

or “estate” and this thing is in practice since the approval of the Registration of Title

Act 1891.

For Ireland, it could make some sense to adopt the similar policy as adopted

by the UK i.e., Land Registration Act 2002 regarding the registered property, as the

Ireland’s justification for the adverse possession is such that it assists in prohibiting

the stale claims from originating, however, this is not applicable to the registered

land6.

This 2002 Land Registration Act comes up as the good solution from the

perspective of paper owner, but along with this it also acts as a harsh solution for

those claimers who are living on the property for many years, invested his finances,

efforts, time, raised his family, and it is probably fair to state that he has created an

emotional tie to the property, only to get it from him.

A major limitation of this particular approach is that it depends on

unsatisfactorily weaker ownership concept. The focus on the title relevancy to

describe the position of owner suggests a equality amongst the position of owner and

position of adverse possessor. This model though in a limited manner, diferentiate

between the possessor and owner. For one factor, this model is picking up on a

distinction in the acquisition mode. Thus an original right for possessing is retained

6Bordwell, Percy. "Disseisin and Adverse Possession." The Yale Law Journal 33.2 (1923):
141-158.
by the adverse possessor, achieved with the help of possesion fact, whereas in the

usual case, the owner has the derivative title obtained through inheritance or transfer.

This model also shows the vulnerability differences of the squatter’s and owner’s

respective rights. The right of the owner to possess is good against all the comers

while the right of squatter has only bound eligibility, but is good only against the real

owner. But in terms of acknowledging the important difference in the squatter’s and

owner’s rights, this model is a failure, while keeping in view that the British law, as

opposed to the civilian law, gets by apart from the ownership idea7.

The limitation of the recent English approach toward the adverse possession is

that the existence of strong ownership present in the common law is overlooked; in its

place, it suggests the difference based on degree instead of the kind amongst the

position of possessor and owner. On this model, the apparent symmetry amongst the

position of owner and possessor accounts for why the claimer or squatter’s necessity

does not go for taking over from the real owner or try to obtain a position that is other

than the position he possessed already. The possession right is all that the possessor

need to begin with and all that anyone required by the end of that day.

Because the fundamental material evidence of ownership of land is not

customary possession but instead an efficient authority, squatters weak possession

acts that are inconsistent with the plans of real owner never show enough challenge to

the position of the owner. For getting hold as an owner, the adverse possessor needs

not only to occupy the land exclusively but should also defeat the agenda or real

owner, which may not or may itself incorporates a presence on that property.

Therefore, in this particular approach, the adverse possessor remove the power of the

7Bordwell, Percy. "Disseisin and Adverse Possession." The Yale Law Journal 33.2 (1923):
141-158.
real owner from his authoritative position not by just squatting but also through

controlling possession in a way similar to an owner and proving that the real

landowner is deprived of the effective authority. This approach highlights the

necessity of adverse possessor’s both act of ownership and intent to own the land. To

cope with the changeable use test, the possessor must desire for taking over from the

real property owner and to step into his shoes. It’s not sufficient for him to merely

plan to carry on in his personal shoes as possessor, as it is given in the recent English

approach.

Work Cited

Ballantine, Henry W. "Title by Adverse Possession." Harvard Law Review 32.2

(1918): 135-159.

Bordwell, Percy. "Disseisin and Adverse Possession." The Yale Law Journal 33.2
(1923): 141-158.
Bouckaert, Boudewijn, and Ben WF Depoorter. "Adverse Possession–Title

Systems." Encyclopedia of Law & Economics (1999).

Stake, Jeffrey Evans. "The uneasy case for adverse possession." Geo. Lj 89 (2000):

2419.