Granny Gets Canned Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Granny Gets Canned - Assignment Example Additionally, the acts also make it illegal to harass employees on the basis of their age. This can include offensive remarks in relation to their age. The employer of Susan makes offensive remarks as regards Susan’s age when she fires her. It is improper to fire an individual without sufficient notice; hence the aggrieved party has a right to legal redress. The employer is required to have sufficient reasons to fire an employee summarily. Susan therefore has the right to sue for wrongful termination of her employment on the basis of age. Whatever the reason that an employer may have for terminating an employee, proper procedures should be followed to mitigate against wrongful dismissal law suits. The employer of Susan should have followed the right procedures if aggrieved with the performance of Susan. Proper procedures include documentation of the problem, following to the book rules and

Criminal Law-Offences against the person (LLB) Essay

Criminal Law-Offences against the person (LLB) - Essay Example America has enacted specific laws to criminalise the activity of those that spread the disease, whilst the UK relies on existing laws to prefer charges. At present within the UK those deliberately or recklessly infecting others in the manner described above are likely to find themselves charged with offences covered by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. To date those who have been found guilty have been convicted under s20 of this Act. Under this section the charge preferred is one of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The cases of R v Konzani1 and R v Dica2 are examples where the courts applied section 2 of the OAPA where the defendants recklessly infected others with HIV. When deliberating on what charges can be brought against those who infect others with HIV the courts will look for proof that the person is aware of their condition that they know the risk of transmission, and they are aware that it passes through sex. People in these circumstances have been found guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. In the case of Dica the court of appeal accepted a submission from the defence that the infected person had consented to the risk of transmission overruling the previous decision of the court where Dica had been found guilty of infecting the injured party. The case of Konzani followed a similar line on consent with the Court of Appeal clarifying how consent should be determined3. In this case, the court of appeal stated that they would only accept that the injured party had consented to the risk, if the defendant can prove that the injured party had been fully informed of their condition, and had made a conscious decision based on that knowledge. Agreeing to unprotected sex could not be viewed as consent to the risk of contracting HIV. The current guidelines on charges that can be brought against