The actus reus of assault may be an act or an omission. R v Marangwanda [2009] EWCA Crim 60 extended this further holding that the transmission does not have to occur through sexual intercourse. ways that may not be fair. is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant), R v Roberts (1972)- concussion; grazes Pendlebury, Perceptions of Playing Culture in Sport: The Problem of Diverse Opinion in the Light of Barnes (2006) 4(2) Entertainment & Sports Law Journal onlinepara. which will affect him mentally. Facts. As the defendant was not used to handling the child he had no idea his conduct would cause the child harm. The alternative actus reus of inflicting grievous bodily harm should be considered. Dica (2005) D convicted of . inflict may be taken to be interchangeable, I can find no warrant for giving the words grievous bodily harm a meaning other than that which the Examples of GBH R v Billinghurst (1978)- broken jaw R v Saunders (1985)- broken nose R v Jones and Others (1986)- broken nose and ruptured spleen R v Aitken and Others (1992)- burns . Whether a jury may consider a victims particular sensitivities and characteristics in assessing the extent of harm. The Court of Appeal referred the question to the House of Lords as to whether it was necessary under s.20 to establish that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of GBH or whether it was sufficient that the defendant foresaw some harm. The glass slipped out of her hands and smashed into pieces, cutting the victim's wrist. Intending to humiliate her, the defendant threw the contents of a drink over the victim. fight is NOT one, must be a good reason for activity for consent to be a defence - HofL held sado-masochisitc behaviour was not one, - had agreement to act itself, activity (battery under s47) did cause harm so cannot rely on consent? It Is In this case the defendants father had undergone gender reassignment treatment to become a woman. To conclude, the OAPA clearly remains to be Tom is walking down the street and a police officer grabs him, handcuffs him and tries to force him into the back of a police car. For example, in relation to surgery, which in the absence of consent that would otherwise qualify as such unlawful harm. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. Should we take into consideration how vulnerable the victim is? serious. crimes where the actus reus of the offence requires proof that the conduct caused a crime. something and achieving the aim for example this is shown in the case of R v Mohan (1976) the force for his arrest. The Court of Appeal therefore substituted a conviction for section 20 __GBH rather than section 18. All offences will start in the magistrates court regardless of how severe it is PART 2 - The House of Commons: The most powerful of Parliament's two houses. Pain is not required for the harm to be classed as ABH. restricting their activities or supervision by probation. Match. causes harm to a victim, the offender can also be required to pay compensation. Due to the age of the Act and numerous issues identified with the offences set out there is lots of discussion surrounding reform of the law in relation to the s.18 and s.20 offences. This was affirmed in the case of R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193 which considered the meaning of maliciously specifically in relation to the s.20 offence. DPP v Smith (2006)- cutting Vs hair. This includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. He put on a scary mask, shouted boo. The low level of harm that could fulfil the definition of a wound is presently classed as equally as serious as GBH for the purposes of the two offences; The classification of the harm as bodily harm does not encompass psychiatric harm.Through the ruling in, Due to the issues with defining maliciously and the double. Due to the requirement for the arrest to be lawful it is necessary to have some knowledge of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 as to when an arrest will be lawful, however for examination purposes the examiner is not testing your knowledge of the Act and will make it easy for you. This is because, as confirmed in R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 an important consideration as to whether harm can be classed as grievous is dependent on the characteristics of the victim and therefore the law cannot reasonably provide a one size fits all list of injuries that this will encompass. R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615 . Flashcards. There is confusing terminology, especially with regards to maliciously and inflict. Occasioning loss etc. prison, doing unpaid work in the community, obeying a curfew or paying a fine. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01. 26, Edis J (giving the judgment of the Court) said that R v Smith (Kim) "supports the proposition that this is the purpose of the tainted gift regime. This was decided in the case of __DPP __v Smith, where the level of injury was said to be really serious harm. whether bodily harm is grievous is based on the individual - D convicted of GBH under s.18 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter - assess individual situation - could not prove it was all from one offence, lesser offence of ABH was used . Martin, R v (1881) 8 QBD 54; Thomas, R v (1985) Subscribe on YouTube. convicted of gbh s.18 oapa. His disturbing and relentless behaviour caused the victim to suffer from severe depression, insomnia and panic attacks. foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk. Theyre usually given for less serious crimes. We have no doubt that in determining the gravity of these injuries, it was necessary to consider them in their real context. unless it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to care whereas a who is elderly and bed bound, has suffered injuries as a consequence of not being turned as usually given for minor offences. Furthermore there are types of sentences that the court can impose Case in Focus: R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846, The defendant inflicted bruising on a 17-month-old child and was convicted of GBH. When that level of harm is inflicted on a person it is often left to fate as to whether or not it will prove fatal. To explain this reasoning further, a fit and healthy 20-year-old will be able to sustain a higher level of harm before this becomes really serious, than a 6-week-old baby or a frail 80-year-old. R v Bollom (2004) 2 Cr App R 6 . To prove the offence, it must be shown that the defendant wounded or inflicted grievous bodily harm. ), Criminal Law (Robert Wilson; Peter Wolstenholme Young), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. Lecture Notes - Psychology: Counseling Psychology Notes (Lecture 1), Pdf-order-block-smart-money-concepts compress, 04a Practice papers set 2 - Paper 1H - Solutions, Buckeye Chiller Systems and the Micro Fin Joint Venture Case Study Solution & Analysis, Phn tch im ging v khc nhau gia hng ha sc lao ng v hng ha thng thng, Multiple Choice Questions Chapter 1 What is Economics, Acoples-storz - info de acoples storz usados en la industria agropecuaria. R v Bollom. indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. drug addiction or alcohol abuse. R v Chan fook - Harm can not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. He was convicted of driving when disqualified even though he believed it had been lifted as his licence had been sent back to him. They can include words, actions, or even silence! This was reckless as proven by the actus reus but the mens rea which is the intention verdict. and it must be a voluntary act that causes damage or harm. This led to several people injuring themselves whilst trying to open the door. Test. Each of these offences requires both actus reus and mens rea to be established. s47 because its harm to the body but not significant damage and shes broken a duty of shouted boo. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, The normal rules of causation apply to dete, is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so tr, Introductory Econometrics for Finance (Chris Brooks), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. There is criticism with regards to the definition of wounding which can be satisfied by a very low level of harm, for example a paper cut. imprisonment or a large sum of fine. behaviour to prevent future crime for example by requiring an offender to have treatment for A wound is classified as a cut or break in the continuity of the skin. where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. Inconsistencies exist within the provisions themselves. Reduce Or can be reckless if high risk and consent is not sought for that risk R v Konzani 2005 I help people navigate their law degrees. Costco The Challenge Of Entering The Mainland China Market Case Study Solution & Analysis, Acoples-storz - info de acoples storz usados en la industria agropecuaria. Consider that on a literal interpretation a paper cut could constitute a wound which is clearly vastly less serious than the level of harm encompassed by GBH so it seems wrong that they are classed as equally serious for the purposes of charging! Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Age and frailty are factors that can be considered when deciding whether injuries are enough to be GBH. Accordingly, inflict can be taken to mean the direct or indirect application of force, or the causing of psychiatric harm. Consider two different defendants punching two different victims in the head. It should be noted that intention is a subjective concept and the court is concerned entirely with what the defendant was intending when he committed the offence and not what a reasonable person may have perceived him to be intending. Discharges are It is not a precondition This was seen in R v Dica, where the defendant caused the victim to become infected with the HIV virus by having unprotected sex without informing them that he was _HIV-positive. FREE courses, content, and other exciting giveaways. certain rules to comply, if they dont they may be sentenced. Before this acquisition A company issued to P, a bank, a debenture giving P a charge over the company's assets in respect of any sums Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Accordingly, the defendant appealed. Bodily harm needs no explanation, and grievous means no It proposes to deal with them as follows: Despite this Bill being proposed back in 1998 there remains no change and the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 remains good law in this area. - infliction of physical force is not required R v Burstow 1998 - age and health of the victim, their 'real context' matters R v Bollom - includes biological harm R v Rowe 2017, intentional HIV infections. Furthermore, there is no offence if the victim perceives that there is no threat. It uses outdated language that is now misinterpreted in modern Following Ireland and Burstow this is definition is qualified in relation to psychiatric harm and there is no requirement for there to be any application of force whatsoever, either direct or indirect. Direct intention is easy to comprehend; it is the very thing the defendant was actually intending to achieve when he did an act. ), Actual Bodily harm and Grievous Bodily Harm, Criminal-LAW- Revision Consent, Liability, Defences AND Causation, Criminal LAW Revision - Theft Robber Burglary Neccesity, Public Law (Constitutional, Administrative And Human Rights Law) (LA1020), Politics and International Relations (L200), Introduction to English Language (EN1023), Extensive lecture notes from the lectures Equity and Trust Law 2013/14 (64 pages), Macroeconomics Class - Complete Set Of Lecture Notes, Principles of Fashion Marketing- Marketing Audit Report, Endocrinology - Lecture notes 12,13,14,15, 314255810 02 Importance of Deen in Human Life, Introduction To Accounting Summary/Revision Notes, Changes in Key Theme - Psychology Revision for Component 2 OCR, Q1 Explain the relationship between resilience and mental wellbeing, Social Area - Psychology Revision for Component 2 OCR. Inflict for this purpose simply means cause. In the case of DPP v Santa-Bermudez, the defendant failed to tell a police officer, when asked, that there was a sharp needle in his pocket, before he was searched. The word grievous is taken to mean serious. In light of these considerations, the correct approach is therefore to conduct an independent assessment of all the facts on a case by case basis. In addition, the defendant need not be in fear, i.e. care as a nurse because its her job to look after her patients and make sure they are safe, It may be for example. verdict A shop keeper was held liable even though it was his employee who had sold the lottery ticket to the child. In the meantime, another student used the hand-drier and was sprayed with the acid, causing injury. This provision refers to causing serious injury and makes no reference to inflicting, wounding or bodily harm. This is known as indirect or oblique intention. R v Bollom [2004]2 Cr App R 50 The defendant was convicted of GBH under s.18 OAPA 1861 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter. Case in Focus: R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. His friend stole some money from the victim and ran off. mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. Reform and rehabilitate offenders by changing an offenders The actus reus for Beth would 43 Q What is the mens rea for section 20 GBH? This would be a subjective recklessness as being a nurse she knew The non-fatal offences that I will describe in this video are assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm/wounding. This can be established by applying the objective test and surrounding case law to assess whether the harm is really serious as per the Smith definition. The defendant made it clear that it was never her intention to actually throw the glass or harm the victim in anyway. The harm can result from physical violence, could include psychiatric harm and could even be cause by the victims own actions, where they try to escape from the apprehended unlawful force of the defendant. The defendant felt threatened by the demands and knocked the victim to the floor, repeatedly punching him in the face. 'PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb whilst attempting to arrest Janice'.-- In Janice's case, he is at fault here by hurng an officer of the force for his arrest. protected from the offender. It should be noted that the if the defendant intended injury, they do not have to have intended serious injury. R v Mandair (1994): on a s charge, a conviction under s is available as an alternative Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. R v Lewis (1974) Which case decided that if GBH is used to escape arrest, it can be raised from S.20 GBH to S.18 GBH? It can be seen from this that a general knowledge of PACE or indeed law in general is sufficient to identify that this is not a lawful detainment and therefore any reckless GBH or wounding caused by Tom in intending to resist the detainment by the police officer will be insufficient to satisfy the mens rea of s.18. However, today this is not the case and it is unusual for such wounds to escalate to that scale. and it must be a voluntary act that causes damage or harm. Several people were severely injured as a result of the defendants actions and he was charged under s.20 OAPA 1861. Biological GBH [Biological GBH] _is another aspect. Notably however, in the instance case, the defendants conviction for GBH under s. 18 was lessened to a charge of ABH under s. 47 as expert medical testimony suggested that the injuries sustained by the victim likely occurred over a prolonged period of time, rather than in the course of a single event, as would be necessary for a finding of GBH. Such injuries would have been less serious on a grown adult, and the jury could properly allow for that. Facts The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partner's seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts. statutory definition for assault or battery. A fine and compensation-fines are the most common punishment. If the injuries are serious and permanent then they will amount to GBH, however permanence is not a pre requisite of GBH. AR - R v Burstow. It is not unforeseeable that one of these will die as a result of the punch and sadly this often happens. whilst attempting to arrest Janice.-- In Janices case, he is at fault here by hurng an officer of In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the defendant parked his car on a police officers foot. defendant's actions. Also the sentencing This may be because it is impossible for the threat to be carried out. With regards to consent, R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 and Attorney Generals Reference no. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. If the defendant intended to cause the harm, then he obviously intended to cause some harm. The word actual indicates that the injury (although there R v Belfon Judgment Weekly Law Reports Cited authorities 14 Cited in 15 Precedent Map Related Vincent Categories Tort Negligence Practice and Procedure Hearing Damages and Restitution Injuries Crime and Sentencing Offences against the Person [1976] EWCA Crim J0319-9 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Before: DPP v K (1990)- acid burns 27th Jun 2019 The victim turned to the defendant and demanded to know where his friend had gone. R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23 presupposed that inflict required an assault to occur, and thus a husband who gave his wife a sexually transmitted disease could not be guilty as she did not know he had the disease and consented to the contact, negating the assault. Lord Roskill set out that GBH may be inflicted either where the defendant has directly and violently assaulted the victim, or where the defendant has inflicted it by intentionally doing an act which, although it is not in itself a direct application of force to the body of the victim, it directly results in force being applied to the body of the victim, so that they suffer grievous bodily harm. She turned up at her sons work dressed in female clothes and he was humiliated. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! In this casethe defendant put a metal bar across the exit of a theatre, turned off the lights and then shouted fire, fire! which provoked people to run towards the exit where the bar was. Therefore, through relevant sporting caselaw, it will be critically examined whether a participant's injury-causing act is an . Case in Focus: R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34. R v Savage (1991): The prosecution is not obliged to prove that D intended to cause some ABH or was reckless as to There are serious issues with the description of the harm the provisions encompass: -. Woolf LCJ, Gibbs, Fulford JJ if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Times 15-Dec-2003, [2004] 2 Cr App R 6if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Cited Golding, Regina v CACD 8-May-2014 The defendant appealed against his conviction on a guilty plea, of inflicting grievous bodily harm under section 20. He does not inform Tom that he is being arrested and when later questioned by his colleague he fails to give a reason for making the arrest. something and achieving the aim for example this is shown in the case of, however indirect intention is wanting to do something but the result was not what it was, foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk. Beth works at a nursing home. Another way in which battery can occur is indirectly. act remains to be disorganized due to its unclear structure. arm.-- In Jons case, he was irresponsible and it was foreseeable that scaring someone on In the Burstow case, the appellant was convicted of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm for harassing a women . Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily His intentions of wanting to hurt the Bollom [2003]). PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb R v Hill (2015)- broken cheekbone, Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause GBH to Held: The judge had been correct to say that what constituted grievous bodily harm had to be looked at in the context of the . For example, a defendant punches a thin pain of glass that the victim is standing behind, intending to break the glass but realising that in doing that it is virtually certain that he will hit the victim, even though this is not his primary intention. Pay attention to this section as for an essay question you may be asked to provide a discussion as to the meaning of inflict. The actus reus for Jon is putting on a scary mask and hiding at the top of the stairs and the It is this element of the offence that provides the crucial distinction between the s.18 charge and the s.20 charge. Temporary injuries can be sufficient. V had sustained other injuries but evidence was unclear how. The mens rea for the s.20 offence is maliciously. The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. To reflect the fact that in reality they are both equally guilty, the s.18 offence carries a maximum life imprisonment. The defendant tried to appeal the charge on the basis that he believed inflict to require the direct application of force but the Court held that this was not the case as direct force was sufficient for the purposes of inflicting harm. This happened in R v Thomas, where the judge decided that the touching of a persons clothing amounted to the touching of the person themselves. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. The crime Janice commited is serious and with a high This makes it clear that for the purposes of a s.18 offence indirect harm will definitely suffice. Due to his injury, he may experience memory Flower; Graeme Henderson), Tort Law Directions (Vera Bermingham; Carol Brennan), Commercial Law (Eric Baskind; Greg Osborne; Lee Roach), Criminal Law (Robert Wilson; Peter Wolstenholme Young), Marketing Metrics (Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein; Paul W. Farris; Neil T. Bendle), Public law (Mark Elliot and Robert Thomas), Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (Gerard J. Tortora; Bryan H. Derrickson), Human Rights Law Directions (Howard Davis), Electric Machinery Fundamentals (Chapman Stephen J. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes If this is evidenced, then the actus reus for the s.20 offence is satisfied and it is not necessary to prove the GBH element in addition for a charge to be available as this is an alternative element. R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212. Section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 provides: Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of felony. Only an intention to kill or cause GBH i s needed to . Both defendants held the same intention and carried out the same act and yet only one of them will face a homicide charge. For the purposes of intention to cause GBH the maliciously element of the mens rea imposes no further requirement. Intention to do some grievous bodily harm. Protect the public from the offender and from the risk of The victims characteristics, including his age, must be considered in deciding whether the harm caused constitutes actual bodily harm, D dropped his partners baby (V) during a night of drinking causing bruising on Vs leg, V had sustained other injuries but evidence was unclear how, D was convicted under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm (GBH), D appealed on the basis that Vs injuries did not amount to GBH as they had to be assessed without reference to Vs age and health, Appeal allowed the conviction was substituted for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s47, Assessment of the harm had to be made on the basis of effect on the particular individual, The injuries need not be life-threatening, dangerous or permanent to constitute GBH, Injuries had to be viewed collectively to assess whether they were serious, Injuries had to be caused by one continuous course of conduct constituting a continuous assault, Although Vs age had to be taken into account when assessing his injuries, the judge failed to direct the jury to determine Ds responsibility in inflicting the injuries was uncertain, as such the conviction was unsafe. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was R V Bosher 1973. In offering a direction as to the s.20 offence the trial judge made no reference to the meaning of the word malicious. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes, where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. In R v Miller the court stated that actual bodily harm was any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. The Court held on appeal that a jury should be able to take into account the unique circumstances of a victim and case in elevating a charge from ABH to GBH. This case exemplifies the type of harm that will be considered as GBH. At trial the judge directed the jury that must convict if the defendant should have foreseen that the handling of his infant son would result in some harm occurring to the child. Zeika was so terrified, she turned to run and fell down the stairs, breaking her 42 Q What else must be proved in GBH? We do not provide advice. In R v Ireland, it was silent phone calls which the court determined as the actus reus of an assault. The difference between a R v Brown and Stratton [1997] EWCA Crim 2255. R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23 presupposed that inflict required an assault to occur, and thus a husband who gave his wife a sexually transmitted disease could not be guilty as she did not know he had the disease and consented to the contact, negating the assault. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Judicial precedent is best understood as a practice of the courts and not as a set of binding rules. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? . shows he did not mean to cause GBH s20 therefore he may receive a few years of Regina v Bollom: CACD 8 Dec 2003. The normal rules of causation apply to determine whether ABH to V was occasioned by Ds assault. R v Bollom. and get an apology. R v Brown (Anthony) [1994] 1 AC 212. by Will Chen; 2.I or your money back Check out our premium contract notes! Whilst the injuries per se did not merit a charge of gross bodily harm under s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, at first instance the judge directed the jury to consider the young age of the victim, resulting in the defendant being found guilty under s. 20, which the defendant subsequently appealed. The defendant was not familiar with being around children and had no idea how to handle a young baby. Project Log book - Mandatory coursework counting towards final module grade and classification. trends shows that offenders are still offending the second time after receiving a fine and R v Burstow. . In upholding his conviction Fulford J stated at paragraph 52 To use this case as an example, these injuries on a 6 foot adult in the fullness of health would be less serious than on, for instance, an elderly or unwell person, on someone who was physically or psychiatrically vulnerable or, as here, on a very young child. Physical act and mens rea is the mental element. R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 484 stated that judges should not attempt to define this any further to a jury and that this is a wholly objective assessment. R v Bollom (2014) 'In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of the effect of the harm on the individual. He was charged with the offence of administering a noxious substances s.23 Act which required the defendant to maliciously administer a noxious thing to endanger life or inflict GBH. Consent is no defence to inflicting actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or wounding i.e., ss 20 and 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) The offence does not have to be life-threatening and can include many minor injuries, not just one major one. As with any problem question on non-fatal offences against the person, make sure that you read the question in full first and check that the victim does not die as a result of the harm. Looking for a flexible role? R v Bollom 19. community sentence-community sentences are imposed for offences which are too serious mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. The case R Intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person. 25% off till end of Feb! community sentences however some offenders stay out of trouble after being released from