Nobody downloaded yet

Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson - Essay Example

Comments (0) Cite this document
Criminal Law Problem Question R v Danny Johnson No: Date: University: Criminal Law Problem Question R v Danny Johnson Homicide is an act of killing one person by another person which includes murder, manslaughter, target killings and extra judicial killings…
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER94.5% of users find it useful
Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson
Read TextPreview

Extract of sample "Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson"

Download file to see previous pages 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 ...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
(“Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson Essay”, n.d.)
Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson Essay. Retrieved from
(Criminal Law. Problem Question. R V Danny Johnson Essay)
Criminal Law. Problem Question. R V Danny Johnson Essay.
“Criminal Law. Problem Question. R V Danny Johnson Essay”, n.d.
  • Cited: 0 times
Comments (0)
Click to create a comment or rate a document

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson

Employment Law Problem Question

...?Employment Law Problem Question Advice to Arinder A detailed examination of the restrictive covenants in Arinder’s employment contract will be made. Restrictive covenants that are triggered after the termination of an employment contract are considered a restraint of trade per se and anti – competitive. Such covenants are void, as they violate public policy. If the employee challenges the validity of such a covenant, it is the responsibility of the employer to prove that the covenant is justifiable.1 PPP will have to defend the use of their restrictive covenant should Arinder contest it. Agreements that prohibit employees from working for a competitor, after the termination of employment are fundamentally void. These covenants... the...
13 Pages(3250 words)Coursework

R v Adomako, Law case

.... The Court of Appeal discussed the tests on involuntary manslaughter when related with questions of gross negligence in dismissing the case and upholding a conviction. The court was faced with confirming that the violation of the duty of care resulted into the death of the victim. It was also important to find out whether the breach of the duty resulted to the death thus justifying a criminal conviction. The appeal was thus dismissed as it failed to convince the judges of the Court of Appeal to have satisfied the test of gross negligence in manslaughter cases (Erin and Ost 2007, p.19). The House of Lords was to ascertain what established criminal negligence, whether it was by gross...
6 Pages(1500 words)Essay

Contract law problem question

...that there was an offer and an acceptance. The question remains whether there was consideration. The general rule is that there has to be reciprocity between the two contracting parties i.e. that a promise should not be able to get anything unless he gives or promises to give something in return to the promisor [Curie v. Misa (1875)]. In our situation, in the agreement between SE and Jayne, SE promised to give 4,000 and in return Jayne attended the training conference. There is however, the issue of the consideration being adequate and whether performance of contractual duties could form sufficient consideration. In the case of the adequacy of the consideration, the law is quite...
10 Pages(2500 words)Essay

Criminal Law: problem analysis

...Criminal Law Order 161674 Deadline: 2007-04-03 16:01 Style: APA Language Style: English UK Grade: 2 Pages: 8 Answer: This problem question raises some issues from homicide, inchoate offences. In order to answer this question it is necessary to discuss transferred malice, conspiracy, and mens rea of Ben, Carl and Drew. The criminal liability of Ben, Carl and Drew is discussed bellow. Gabrielle and her personal trainer, Carl may be liable for conspiracy. At common law the offence of conspiracy was committed where two of more persons agreed 'to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means'...
8 Pages(2000 words)Case Study

Criminal law problem question

...CRIMINAL LAW PROBLEM QUESTION - ACTUS REUS Actus reus, put simply, means 'a guilty act'. This must be present for an offence to have been committed. In the case of murder actus reus must be an act that results in death. In the case of manslaughter, this can be performed in a commission or an omission resulting in death. The most common definition of the actus reus in murder is provided by Edward Coke, who states - "When a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's Peace, . . . so as the party wounded, or hurt, et cetera, die of the wound or hurt, et cetera,...
6 Pages(1500 words)Case Study

Criminal Law Problem question

.... In view of the foregoing reasons, Edward cannot be held criminally liable for unlawful act manslaughter because Edward was merely involved in the supply of a controlled drug which was later subsequently self-administered by Lisa to whom it was supplied freely and voluntarily. Under the facts in the given problem, Lisa appears to be a fully-informed and responsible adult. Moreover, Edward and Sarah cannot likewise be held criminally liable for Lisa's death upon a charge of gross negligence manslaughter. In the case of R. v Khan (Rungzabe)4, it was ruled that that "manslaughter by omission was a type of manslaughter arising from a breach of duty coupled...
8 Pages(2000 words)Essay

Criminal Law - Homicide:Murder Problem motive of Gordon could be regarded as an aggravating factor for the attack, which would increase the possibility of a more severe charge being brought against Gordon. Bibliography Allen, C, Practical Guide to Evidence, 2nd Ed, 2001, Cavendish Publishing Ashworth, A and Blake, M The presumption of innocence in English law [1996] Crim LR 306 Cook, K, James, M, and Lee, R, Core Statutes on Criminal Law, 2006-2007, Law Matters Elliott, C & Quinn, F, Criminal Law, 3rd Ed, 2000, Pearson Education Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd ed 1983), London: Stevens & Sons Herring,...
6 Pages(1500 words)Essay

Criminal law problem question

... to Siegfried satisfying the condition set out in R v Newbury and R v Church9. The act also satisfies the condition set out in R v Ball that the act need not have been target at Vince for it to constitute the actus reus of manslaughter10. Therefore, the court would easily find Barry liable to the crime of involuntary manslaughter. The fact that the original act was unlawful denies Barry access to a viable defence. Bibliography Case law DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500 R v Ball [1989] Crim LR 730 DPP v [1977] AC 500 R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59; R v Lowe [2002] UKHL 46 R v G & R [2003] 3 WLR Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868   Legislation Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1(1)... Criminal law...
3 Pages(750 words)Essay

Contract Law Problem Question

....; Crystal, N. M.; Prince, H. G., Problems in contract law: cases and materials (Aspen Publishers/ Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2007). Liu, C.; Newman, M. S., Remedies in international sales: perspectives from CISG, UNIDROIT principles and PECL (Juris Net 2007). Meyer, L., Non-performance and remedies under international contract law principles and Indian contract law: a comparative survey of the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts, the principles of European contract law, and Indian statutory contract law (Frankfurt am Main 2010). Notes to the PECL: Article. 8:101 Notes to the PECL: Art....
10 Pages(2500 words)Essay


7 Pages(1750 words)Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Let us find you another Essay on topic Criminal Law. Problem Question. R v Danny Johnson for FREE!

Contact Us