Causal Relationship Analysis of Actus Reus and Mens Rea - Research Paper Example

Criminal Law The problem in this question relates to the law on homicide, causation as well as defences that may be available. In respect of the homicide the first and foremost discussion would be in respect of the actus reus and mens rea of homicide, moving on to causation and eventually and analysis of the defences would be made. In accordance with the firmly embedded principle laid down by Article 6(2) ECHR it is evident that “Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law”. This makes it quite clear that there is presumption whereby a person is deemed to be innocent unless the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the criminal liability of the person, proved by the prosecution. Therefore in respect of the facts at hand unless a case beyond reasonable is made in respect of John he would be deemed to be innocent. (Woolmington v. DPP)1 (Oremond et al, 2011) On the basis of the above discussion it is important to bear in mind that criminal liability would accrue if the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof vests with the prosecution. An important principle that is also laid down is that the actus reus and mens rea of the offence must coincide, however the courts have adopted a broad approach in respect of the same. (Clarkson et al, 2010) In respect of proving an offence the requirement is that of actus reus, mens rea and the absence of any defence (Lord Diplock in R v Miller). There has been an important requirement that actus reus and mens rea need to coincide, however it is pertinent to mention that the said requirement has been interpreted broadly. (Fagan v. Commissioner of Police)2. A situation where it was found that the actus reus and mens rea had coincided was that the conduct of the defendant created a situation of danger (R v. Miller)3. (Oremond et al, 2011) The actus reus of an offence is usually satisfied when a positive act is committed. There has often been the requirement that the act that has been committed must be voluntary, as was defined by Lord Denning that ‘No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily, and an involuntary act in this context...means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking...’ (Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland)4 . Thus the act of the defendant must therefore be voluntary and a wilful movement of body. (Simester et al 2009), The second element is that of mens rea which deals with the state of mind of the accused. The criteria for mens rea has been developed and is ongoing for a number of years and the cases that were decided upon took into consideration the intention, subjective recklessness, objective recklessness, lacuna etc. (Simester et al 2009), As far as mens is concerned the current situation is that of Woollin5 and R v. G which has been attained after refining of the original test for intention. Thus the test is that there must either be direct intent that is the defendant had intended a result by committing the particular act; or oblique intent that is the result may have been that which was a virtually certain consequence of the act. (Oremond et al, 2011) The issue in respect of the liability that requires an evaluation is that whether in respect of the facts at hand there is an element of causation which would break the chain of causation. The test of causation first deals with factual issues that is would the harm have occurred but for the action of the defendant, this is what is known as the ‘but for’ test (R v. White)6. It is evident by the facts that the act of John had led to the harm and so the ‘but for’ test proves the fact that the harm was in fact caused by John. The second issue requires determination of legal causation that is whether the acts of John were the substantial and the operating cause of death(R v. Cheshire)7, (Clarkson et al, 2010) in respect of this it can be said that it was in fact the actions of John which had led to the current situation and his continuing act of burning down the house led to the death. The next issue would be whether death was a natural consequence of such actions. By looking at the entirety of the facts at hand the test would clearly be satisfied. Finally there was no third party intervention in respect of the actions of John. John cannot claim that the victim that is Denise was so sensitive. John can also not argue that the death was not caused by him as he thought that Denise had died and if proper medical treatment had been received Denise could have been saved, this is because the acts of John led to the situation and so the chain of causation would remain intact. Thus the actus reus and mens rea in respect of the facts would be said to remain intact. The first and foremost type of homicide is that of murder, the criteria of which is of the highest nature. The actus reus of murder was laid down by Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century wherein he stipulated that a defendant would have committed the act if he ‘unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen’s peace’. Unlawfully does not in any way include the killing of someone which has been deemed to be lawful by the state. In respect of the facts at hand it is evident that John’s act created the situation of danger that is his push by force and the eventual act of burning down the house, both the acts were illegal. In respect of killeth it is evident that the legal cause of the death has been by virtue of the fire and this is clearly attributed to John. As far as killing of the reasonable creature in rerum natura it is where the life of a human is taken which is conclusive from the death of Denise. The final word that is Queen’s peace means that the death must have occurred within England. It can be assumed that Denise died in England death occurred in England. Thus by virtue of the facts it is evident that the actus reus of murder has sufficed. (Oremond et al, 2011) The next element which would now be considered is the mens rea that is required for murder. The mens rea for murder has been defined as ‘malice aforethought’. To attain clarity the mens rea is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm as laid down in the case of R v. Moloney8. (Oremond et al, 2010) Intention was discussed in the case of R v. Woollin9 and had been applied in the case of R v. Matthews and Alleyne10 wherein it was stipulate that the aim of the defendant or his purpose was to kill or to cause grievous bodily or that he know that such harm would be virtually certain consequence of such an act. It has been clearly laid down that any act which falls below that of virtual certainty would not suffice. (Glazebrook, 2008) By scrutinizing the facts it looks that John did not posses the intention to kill or was virtually certain to kill. In respect of grievous bodily harm it can be seen that even though force was used John did not have the intention so as to cause grievous bodily harm. On the basis of the above discussion of murder, it is evident that the mens rea would not be satisfied and therefore John would not be liable for murder. The next head that would be considered in respect of homicide is that of voluntary manslaughter. The actus reus and mens rea of voluntary manslaughter is the same as that of murder. The only difference is that switching from murder to voluntary manslaughter the defences of provocation or diminished responsibility need to be fulfilled. The partial defences were common law defences until the enactment of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. (Oremond et al, 2011) In respect of the partial defence to murder that is section 54 of loss of control, would be discussed. The section states that where the defendant kills another person he would not be convicted of murder if the acts and omission of defendants in such killing was a result of loss of self control of defendant; the loss of such self control has a qualifying trigger; and finally the objective principle that is a person of the sex and age of the defendant, with a’ normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.’ (Oremond et al, 2010) As far as the facts are concerned it can be argued that the John was provoked and therefore this is a valid defence. However, it is important to mention that the mens rea is that of murder which has clearly not been established on the facts and thus even if such is proved then reliance can be placed on the aforementioned defences. The next type of homicide is that of reckless manslaughter. The case of R v. G. has brought about changes which mean that for manslaughter, subjective recklessness will suffice. The test in respect of subjective recklessness is that as laid down in R v. Cunningham11 that is a person is reckless where the act is committed knowingly by him despite of knowing that there is a risk that such a consequence may result from his act/conduct. (Oremond et al, 2011) On the facts it is clear that John was not subjectively reckless as there was no awareness as to the result of his acts whereby he used force on Denise nor was there awareness that Denise was alive when he burned the house down thus it can be said that he did not foresee the consequences of the said action. The next type of homicide is that of gross negligence manslaughter the requisite of which is a proof of a high degree of negligence which was evident in Lord Atkin’s judgment in Andrews v. DPP12 where he stated ‘[In the older cases] expressions will be found which indicate that to cause death by any lack of due care will amount to manslaughter, but as manner softened and the law became more humane, a narrower criterion appeared’ In Adomako13 the House of Lords laid down the test and stated that the defendant having regard to the risk of death involved by the action of the defendant were so daft in the circumstances so as to make him liable for his act or omission. Lord Mackay in the current situation pointed out on how directions should be given to the jury. It was further established that the question of duty owed by defendant to the deceased would be determined by the jury after taking into account the evidence that was provided. (Rose LJ in R v. Willoughby14). Thus the first element is that of establishment of a duty of care. The second requisite element is that there must be breach which must amount to gross negligence. In Attorney General’s reference (No. 2 of 1999) it was stated that there was no need that the defendant foresaw a risk of death. The final requirement is that the breach caused the death. (Glazebrook, 2008) In respect of the current situation it can be said that there was clearly a clear duty of care that arose after the actions of John whereby force was used. The next element is that of breach, clearly the incorrect assumption of his death and the act of burning the house down was a breach; however gross negligence is a point for jury to be decided upon. However, the establishment of a duty of care in this respect would be vague and so there is likelihood of the courts not finding a duty and therefore not finding John liable under gross negligence. The final manslaughter under the head of involuntary manslaughter is that of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter where an unlawful act was committed by the defendant and this can be casually attributed to the death. As far as dangerousness is concerned the courts in R v. Church15 in particular Lord Edumnd-Davies stated that an unlawful act would be dangerous if ‘all sober and reasonable people’ foresaw that the unlawful act led the victim to the risk of some harm, but not necessarily serious harm. It is important to mention that this test is objective and so there is no requirement of proving that the defendant knew the fact that his conduct carried the risk of harm (R v. Lipman16). Finally it is important to establish that the unlawful act was the cause of the death. (Ashworth, 2009) In respect of the current situation it can be said that the John’s action of having used force would to the least constitute as battery and so this was the unlawful act. As far as dangerousness of the act is concerned it is evident that John was aware that some harm would be cause and subsequently burned the house. Furthermore since the requirement of this is an objective one it would be easy to establish this and so the dangerousness would suffice and so foreseeability of risk of harm is not required. References Ormerod, D C, J C. Smith, Brian Hogan, and D C. Ormerod.Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print Ashworth, Andrew. Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Clarkson, C M. V, Heather M. Keating, Sally Cunningham, and C M. V. Clarkson. Criminal Law: Text and Materials. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010. Print Glazebrook, P R. Criminal Law 2008-2009. Blackstone's statute books. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Ormerod, D C. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print Simester, A P, and G R. Sullivan. Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine. Oxford: Hart, 2009. Print. Read More