Criminal Law Problem - R v Danny Johnson - Essay Example

? Criminal Law Problem Question R v Danny Johnson No: Criminal Law Problem Question R vDanny Johnson Homicide is an act of killing one person by another person which includes murder, manslaughter, target killings and extra judicial killings. The killing in every part of the world and in the eyes of law is unlawful. However, murder in self defense is justifiable and according to law. The killing of a living human being falls under the purview of murder. The Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 and the Abortion Act 1967 provide protection to a person against child killing by way of abortion due to one reason or the other1. The burden of prove lies on the shoulder of the defendant concerning cause of death of the victim. Here, mentioned points are worth consideration: a) whether the defendant responsible for the victim's death b) can he be caught in accordance with law c) whether the victim’s death cause of inflicted injury or some other intervening act d) whether the victim receive proper medical treatment e) whether the attempted escape of defendant cause victim’s death. In this respect we may cite here the case of R v White [1910] 2 KB 124. The defendant diluted poison in his mother’s glass but she died due to heart failure. The cause of death was heart failure and not the intake of the poisonous drink. He was tried and convicted of attempted murder2. In another case of R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35, it was held that the defendant's operating and substantial cause of death is the cause in Law. There are circumstances wherein the intervening acts of the defendant attributes to the cause of death of a victim. As per law, defendant cannot be accountable provided the victim died due to the acts of other’s misdeed. It does not mean that in every case of intervening acts that cause the death of a victim, defendant will be absolved from its liability. Following grounds can be considered to get hold of the defendant causing death of a person: a) if the death caused to multiple reasons wherein the defendant’s role was operating and substantial, he / she will be liable for punishment under the law. Let us examine the case of R v Malcherek (1981) 73 Cr App R 173. Wherein the woman had received fatal injuries for which she had to place on the life supporting machine. Taking into account the clinical death and found no hope of recovery, doctors decided to disconnect the life supporting machine that caused her to death within half an hour. The defendant charged with attempted murder, tried and awarded death sentence. He subsequently went on to appeal against the judgment of the trial court to the Court of Appeal on the plea that the doctors had broken the cycle of life by deliberately switching off the life supporting machine. The plea was dismissed. It was held by the Court of Appeal that since the operating and substantial factors involved that cause the death of wounded woman which was initially inflicted upon by the defendant. The court was of the view that since the role of life supporting machine was confined to keep the injuries in suspension, therefore, as soon as the machine went off the original wounds came on the surface causing death of wounded woman3. Apart from the above, the badly wounded person may succumb to injuries as a natural consequence of the defendant acts. In the mentioned scenario the defendant got hold of death. Suppose a person is attacked and left in the lurch on the road side. The attacker will be liable for punishment if the wounded person dies of oozing out blood, for infectious wounds of him, run over by the speedy vehicle. The other way round, defendant would not be accountable provided he / she killed by another murderer or killed under the debris of a collapsible building due to hell of a tremor. Nonetheless where Human intervention meant for self-preservation / in execution of a legal duty does not hamper the chain of cause of incident. Study of the case of R v Paget (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 indicates if defendant make his / her escape good by holding a girl as a shield to protect and shot at armed policemen. The policemen had no alternate but to fire back. The misfire took the life of the girl who got hold by the defendant. The Court of Appeal was of the opinion that the cause of death of the girl went to the defendant since the policemen fired back on their self defense / in execution of their legal duties, hence not liable for punishment. In view the Court of Appeal, the defendant is liable for capital punishment4. As far as the application of “Thin Skull Rule” is concerned, the defendant must take his / her victim. Suppose if “A” hits on the skull of “B” with a soft degree of force which cause slight bruise. If “B” got his skull fractured / brain damaged, “A” cannot be accountable for the broken chain of cause. Let us look at the case of R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692. As per the plea, a man was found on the streets, cashing his wife with shouting, threatening of dire consequences and kicking on her buttock brutally. Resultantly she could not succumb to maltreatment and died. He was convicted for the above mentioned deeds causing death of his wife5. While set a siding the appeal, the Court of Appeal in the case of Smith (1959), Blaue (1975), Malcherek (1981) and Cheshire (1991) held that the question arises whether the injuries of the victim were operating / significant cause of death. Here, the cause of death of a victim was profusely bleeding from the wounds that inflicted upon by the defendant. Now the jury has to determine the defendant's conduct. If it found operative and significant towards the death of victim would be liable for capital punishment. In the case of R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152, wherein the victim later on died due to fatal injuries of sharp knife. The Court of Appeal called the opinion of two doctors in respect of a) whether the cause of death due to stab wound b) whether the given anti biotic amounts to intravenous liquid and c) whether direct and immediate cause of death was pneumonia. The court held that the stab wound was not the only cause of death but attributable to other factors. Hence, the Court of Appeal rejected the plea of prosecution for the conviction of respondent6. The case of R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 is an example of the exact fact. Here, in this case the respondent scuffled with colleague soldier. During the course of fight the respondent stabbed the victim more than once. The victim rushed to the hospital and later on died. While defending the charge of murder, the defendant argued that between the chain of causation of stabbing and the death had been broken due to: a) victim fell down twice while taken to the medical unit b) the medical officer did not realize the seriousness of the wounds and c) the victim was treated badly by the doctors. The respondent was tried and received conviction on account of murder. The court was of the view that respondent act of stabbing was “operating and substantial cause" of death. The case in point indicates that the victim died down due to flow of blood on account of injuries that inflicted upon7. In the case of R v Corbett [1996] Crim LR 594, the respondent was a mentally retarded person, suffered acute mental ill health who consumed alcohol all the day. While arguing each other at night, the defendant hit the victim with hard stick. The victim made his escape good but fell down in the manhole, stuck up and overrun by a car that caused him to death. The trial court directed the jury to determine whether the cause of action was over drunk by the victim or any other cause. The death of the victim attributed to natural consequences of the respondent’s attitude. If the court decides on the other possibilities, then the respondent should have been acquitted rather than convicted. The respondent filed an appeal to quash him from conviction in the Court of Appeal. The court while relied upon the case of Roberts (1971) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the judge had properly advised the jury on the issue of foresee ability8Bottom of Form. A thorough study of the above cited numerous cases and keeping in mind the prosecution stance in this case, it is obvious that Danny was found involved in the murder of Victor, Security Guard of a mobile warehouse, who broke open the mobile warehouse if touched upon the criterion of “operating and substantial cause”. Had Danny helped the guard in question to pull and place him on the roof, who was hanging 50 feet above the grounds, the situation would have been quite different. The death of the said guard could be averted by providing timely help which was not done in this case. Hence, he is liable for capital punishment. The other way round, the defense takes the plea that since Danny was not directly involved in the murder or attempt to murder of Danny, therefore not liable for capital punishment. Hence, the defendant merits exoneration from the charges of murder. References Cheshire 1991 3 All ER 670  Janet Loveless Criminal Law, (OUP, Oxford 2010) Matthews & Alleyn [2003] EWCA Crim 192  Newbury and Jones v DPP (1977) HL Peter Childs and Mike Storry (eds), ‘Abortion Acts’, Encyclopedia of Contemporary British Culture (Routledge, London, 2002) 1–2 Roberts (1971) 56 CAR 95 R v Corbett [1996] Crim LR 594 R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692  R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 R v Malcherek (1981) 73 Cr App R 173 R v Paget (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 R v White [1910] 2 KB 124 Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 (HL)  Read More