Determining Criminal Case - Coursework Example

?Facts Charlie, who was drunk, threw a stone at her ex-girlfriend for being unfaithful. Instead of hitting his girlfriend, he hit a shopper. The shopper was blinded in one eye. Charlie was chased by a policeman. He did not hear the warning given so the police fired at him. However, instead of wounding Charlie, the police officer killed the shopper. A Glance at the Case In the case of Charlie, his motive was purely personal. He wanted to frighten his ex-girlfriend as she was allegedly unfaithful. Clearly, it was just an allegation on his part. It was a kind of revenge. Nevertheless, he was able to hit the shopper and not his ex-girlfriend. Knowing that it was a street, a public area, Charlie could have exercised an extra care in throwing the stone. Presumably, he was drunk so he was not able to consider the required duty of care. He was intoxicated. To note, the shopper was blinded in one eye. The question now would focus on his criminal liability if any in the instant scenario. Charlie could actually make any of the following as his defence against the shopper: (1) he did not intend to hit the shopper-- it was unintentional; (2) he was intoxicated -- this could mean that he was not in his right mind when he executed the act; (3) it was purely incidental -- he had nothing to do with the situation. On the other hand, the police officer could choose any of the following to defend himself and prove his innocence: (1) he gave a warning to Charlie; (2) he decided to fire at Charlie since he did not listen; (3) he did not intend to kill the shopper -- the killing was unintentional. To this extent, Charlie could refute the second defence of the police as he was hard of hearing. The Principles of Actus Reus and Mens Rea In determining criminal liability, there are two factors that should be considered, “actus reus” and “mens rea.” In British law, there is a need to prove the existence of the two factors so as to judge an accused as criminally liable. Stated in another sense, there should be a direct relation between the criminal’s mind and action. The prosecutors should be able to show that the accused really intended to commit the criminal act. It would be plausible to state then that if they could not prove the presence of the two factors, the accused should be absolved from any criminal liability. Nevertheless, there are certain exceptions to this rule. It could happen that the criminal does not really have the intention to commit the crime as he or she was forced to do so or was just unaware of the consequences of his or her act. Self-defence and insanity illustrate this situation. Both are actually lawful justifications in a criminal complaint. There will be no unlawful act if an accused successfully proves either of the two defences in court. As explained by Allen, where a particular defence functions as an excuse to the accused’s criminal conduct, such act is negated as it would be deemed to have been the proper course of action in the situation in which the accused found himself or herself.1 As such, the accused would not face the normal effects of conviction and sentencing flowing from the wrong conduct requiring mens rea.2 To properly assess the instant scenario, it would be appropriate to tackle first the principle on actus reus. Actus reus actually refers to the external or outside elements of the offence.3 Specifically, it refers to the elements of a crime which are to be established and proven by the prosecution other than the mens rea.4 The essential difference between the two principles of criminal law (actus reus and mens rea) is that actus reus is related to criminal acts while mens rea is associated with the state of mind or criminal mind. Stated otherwise, the first is to action whereas the second is to intellect. Nonetheless, there are crimes in which criminal intent is one of its essential elements like murder. In the case at hand, Charlie's act towards his ex-girlfriend was an assault, a common assault under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988.5 An assault is actually a non-fatal offence against an individual.6 In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439, the court declared that common assault is committed when an accused either recklessly or intentionally causes the victim's perception of an unlawful and immediate personal violence.7 The House of Lords has approved this definition in Savage and Parmenter [1991] 1 AC 699 at 740.8 In this definition, one can observe that criminal intention is an element of the crime. In the present case, it is presumed that Charlie's ex-girlfriend was able to perceive Charlie's act of throwing a stone at her. Despite the fact that Charlie was not able to hit his ex-girlfriend, he is still liable for common assault. What is important is that the throwing of stone was done intentionally and recklessly which caused the girl to apprehend a personal violence. The act was intentional as clearly stated in the given situation -- Charlie intended to frighten his ex- girlfriend. It was reckless since the crime was committed in a public area, a street. It is assumed that there are many people in the street. Nevertheless, Charlie was not able to consider that fact. As a consequence, when he threw the stone, a shopper was hit instead of his ex-girlfriend. The wrong act had caused the shopper to be blinded in one eye. To bring a legal claim, Charlie's ex-girlfriend could file a case based on assault in the magistrates' court. The magistrates' court dispenses summary justice. According to Rod Morgan (2008), summary justice refers to court proceedings which are carried out rapidly. The speed in dispensing justice is achieved by omitting some of the formalities required by common law.9 Criminal assault belongs to summary offences. In contrast with indictable offences, summary offences pertain to crimes which are to be dealt only by the lower courts like the magistrates’ court.10 Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 provides that common assault is a summary offence and the accused guilty of it shall either pay a fine and be imprisoned for not more than six months or both.11 This is the punishment that awaits Charlie. To counter the claim for summary justice, Charlie could use intoxication as a defence. This would now involve the examination of Charlie's state of mind when he threw the stone at his ex-girlfriend. To be specific, the mens rea of the offence shall be tackled. Mens rea or fault intent pertains to the criminal's state of mind during the execution of the actus reus.12 This supports the general maxim for criminal liability: "the act is not guilty unless the mind is also guilty" (actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea).13 It is a fact that no one has the ability to read the mind of others. Thus, when considering the accused’s criminal intent (mens rea), there is a need to associate it with the actus reus. Intent can actually be determined by analyzing the method used by the accused in performing the unlawful conduct. Going back to the present case, it was clear that Charlie was intoxicated when he committed the assault. His intoxication was voluntary or self-induced. Unluckily, British law does not generally accept getting drunk as a justification for criminal behavior. It is without doubt that alcohol influences people’s judgement.14 Voluntary intoxication presupposes negligence on the part of the accused. If Charlie would not have been drunk, he could have acted rationally. A rational act would mean that he could not have considered throwing a stone at his ex-girlfriend. For intoxication to be a valid defence, it should be involuntary. For instance, if an individual’s drink is added with more alcohol or drugs than what he or she have known, then, involuntary intoxication can be used as a defence.15 A common assault belongs to offences of basic intent. These types of offences necessitate the highest consideration of mens rea.16 The accused should have the specific intention to commit the crime. This would follow that even if the accused is not drunk, he would still perform the wrongful act. Based on the provided situation, it could be contended that Charlie had the specific intention to frighten his ex-girlfriend by hurting her with a stone. As such, Charlie could not successfully raise intoxication as a defence to the summary claim of common assault. Offences Against Person and Transferred Malice With regard to the shopper's injury (being blinded in one eye), Charlie could actually be held liable under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act of 1861. It says: "Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence and, being convicted therefore, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years."17 The act of throwing a stone was the unlawful act which caused a serious bodily injury to the shopper. In the case of Regina v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421 (CA), it was emphasized that the term "maliciously" in section 20 does not require that the accused was aware of any consequences which cause physical harm to other person. This means that Charlie could still be held liable as to the shopper's injury whether or not there was malice on his part. In another aspect, Charlie could also be held liable under the doctrine of transferred malice as to the shopper's injury. This legal principle states that an accused could not escape criminal liability if his or her unlawful act towards an individual injures another.18 The mens rea is actually transferred so liability on the part of the accused still exists.19 This is illustrated in the case of R v Latimer [ 1886 ] 17 QB 359. In that case, instead of hitting his intended victim, Latimer seriously injured a woman nearby.20 The court held him liable for the woman's injury based on the transferred malice doctrine. In Charlie's case, instead of hitting his ex-girlfriend, he hit the shopper. In this instance, despite the fact that he had no malice in hitting the shopper, he can still be liable due to transferred malice. Charlie's malice of hitting his ex-girlfriend was transferred to the shopper. Also, the offences involved were of the same nature. For emphasis, the offences should have the same nature for transferred malice to exist. The importance of such requisite was discussed in the case of R v Pembliton [1874] LR 2 CCR 119.21 To reiterate, Charlie could not validly use intoxication as a defence. If only the shopper had not been killed, he or she could make Charlie criminally liable by filing a case in the magistrates' court. Causation As to the policeman's case, it is proper to discuss the topic on causation. In criminal law, causation is associated to the connection "between the act and the harmful result."22 The act refers to the actus reus. To convict an accused under the principle of causation, the prosecution must show that the actus reus of the accused has brought the harmful consequence in two different aspects.23 First, it must be proven that the act committed by the accused was the harm's "cause in fact."24 Second, it must be demonstrated by the prosecutors that the act was the harm's "proximate cause."25 The first aspect (cause in fact) can actually happen in two ways, by either being the "but for" or "substantial factor" cause of the harm.26 The "but for" rule states that if the consequence of the act committed by the accused "would have happened anyway," even if the act had not occurred, the act would not be the cause in fact of the consequence.27 On the other hand, if the act executed by the accused has substantially contributed to the happening of the result, then, the accused shall be deemed guilty under the substantial factor.28 As applied in the given scenario, it can be asserted that the blinding in one eye of the shopper did not substantially cause his or her death. Being blind will not likely result into death, but just the state of not seeing the things around. In other words, a blind man or woman can live even having a single vision. It could not even be said that the shopper's incapability has shortened his or her life. In this context, it is logical to say that the shopper's demise would still happen even if he or she was not blinded in one eye by Charlie. In such case, the policeman's act falls under the "but for" rule. In considering the second aspect, the principle on proximate cause shall be explained. There are two known problems in proximate cause cases. These are the following: (1) circumstances wherein the kind of harm intended happened, and happened in the way intended, however, "the victim was not the intended one"; (2) instances wherein the kind of harm intended happened and happened "to the intended victim, but" happened in an unintended way.29 Analyzing the policeman's case, one can observe that what he did does not belong to any of the two problems. What transpired in his case can be described in three ways: (1) the type of harm he intended did not occur; (2) the act happened in an unintended manner; and (3) the act caused harm to an unintended victim. To review, the policeman decided to fire just to wound Charlie but the bullet hit and killed the shopper who was blinded in one eye. It is without doubt that the police had no intention to kill the shopper or to kill Charlie. It can be stated then that the consequence happened either due to his negligence or recklessness. To note, when the killing occurred, they were all in a public area. Nonetheless, it is part of the policeman's duty to patrol in public areas. In this sense, it can be claimed that the death of the shopper was only incidental to the performance of the police officer’s duty. This could further mean that the police officer is innocent as to the shopper's death. In pursuance of such idea, the policeman could insist on the defense of call of duty when he decided to shoot Charlie. He could assert that Charlie did not listen to his warning shot so he decided to shoot him as he escaped after having committed a grievous injury to the shopper. He could also raise the defense based on necessity -- that it was necessary on his part to fire at Charlie as he was an escapee. Moreover, he should be able to prove that he was not negligent or reckless in executing his duty. Stated otherwise, he should be able to show that what he did was justifiable. If he could not demonstrate the aforementioned requirements then the policeman could be executed for homicide as the killing was unintentional.30 Homicide is triable by the magistrates' court. The magistrates' court has jurisdiction on indictable offences. Bibliography Allen, J, Textbook on criminal law, Oxford University, Press Oxford, 2007. Brookman, F, Understanding homicide, SAGE, London, 2005. Emanuel, S, Criminal law: the crunchtime series, Aspen Publishers Online, New York, 2007. Molan, M, & M Molan, Cases & materials on criminal law, Routledge, London, 2005. Morgan, R, Summary justice: fast - but fair, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, London, 2008. O’Riordan, J, A2 law for OCR, Heinemann Educational Publishers, Oxford, 2003. UK Legislation, Criminal Justice Act of 1988, retrieved 15 February 2011, . UK Legislation, Offences against the Person Act of 1861, retrieved 15 February 2011, . Read More