Parties Criminal Liability and Criminal Law - Essay Example

? CRIMINAL LAW Facts Rachel and Monica paid a visit to the Pick and Run Supermarket when it was carrying out its close down sale. Monica bought a set of Kitchen knives, frying pan and a pair of scissors. When Monica and Rachel were on their way out of the supermarket, they met their friend Ross’ new girlfriend Charlie. Monica invited both Charlie and Rachel back to her apartment for tea. While having tea and admiring the purchase’s Monica had made, Rachel proposed that they play a game, “truth or dare.” When it was Rachel’s turn, she chose a dare and Charlie challenged her to a game of throwing knives, where they-Charlie and Monica-would each throw one knife close to Rachel’s foot without hitting her. Rachel would win the challenge if she did not move her foot. Rachel accepted the challenge. The game started and Charlie was the first to throw a knife which hit Rachel’s ankle resulting in a deep cut and started bleeding. Rachel shouted at Charlie that she would get back to her, if she wasn’t in much pain. Seeing what had happened, Monica shouted to Charlie wondering whether she was crazy. Monica then lamented that she could not believe that Charlie had cut Rachel’s foot and asked whether it was because she hated her since she used to date Ross who still loves her. These comments infuriated Charlie, who grabbed the pair of scissors lying on the table and cut a large chunk of Monica’s hair. Charlie raised her hand again holding the scissors and Monica thought that she was going to cut her again, and so she rushed out of the house. On her way out, Monica met Joey who had heard the commotion and had come to check what was going on. Bumping onto Joey, Monica fell on the floor dislocation the right wrist which she had previously injured a day earlier while playing tennis. Rachel grabbed the frying pan and tried to hit Charlie at the time Joey was entering the apartment. Rachel missed Charlie and instead hit Joey fracturing his nose. In this case, the facts are that, Rachel was aware of the risk and danger she was putting herself into when she agreed to take the challenge that allowed Charlie and Monica to throw knives near her foot. Charlie threw a knife that cut Rachel’s foot resulting in bleeding; this was not intentional but an accident. As a result of infuriation, Charlie cut off a big chunk of Monica’s hair, this was not an accident, and it was intentional. Monica dislocating her arm as a result of bumping onto Joey was purely an accident. Rachel hitting Joey’s nose with a frying pan and fracturing it was not intentional. Based on the facts of this case, the question that arises is what criminal liabilities for the said parties in this case are. Parties Criminal Liability It is very clear, from the facts extrapolated above; the issues of Grievous Bodily Harm, Accidents, and Transferred Malice in relation to injuries are significant to these parties’ liabilities. Neither Rachel, Joey nor Monica, did anything wrong. The harm caused to Rachel by Charlie, the deep cut in Rachel’s foot, is considered involuntary. The potential criminal liability that faces Charlie is the Grievous Bodily Harm statute under section 18 of the 1861 Act, Offences against the Person. According the external elements of the offence-actus reus-a defendant must unlawfully cause any grievous bodily harm or wound1. The deep cut on Rachel’s foot caused by Charlie may constitute a grievous bodily harm or wound, under the rule found in Eisenhower, the continuity of the whole skin be cut rule2. The deep cut on Rachel’s foot caused by Charlie can also be explained under really serious bodily harm as seen in the case DPP v Smith3, but would, however, be up to the jury. According to the mens rea4, for such a liability to accrue, there is a requirement that an act needs to be malicious and with intent. Charlie would most probably fall under section 18 of the 1861 Act, Offences against the Person, which does need intent or malice5. It may be argued that cutting someone’s foot with a knife resulting in a deep cut and bleeding is malicious or intentional; the act by Charlie in itself was not intentional but can be argued to have been malicious6. It is important look at the use of maliciously in both Latimer ratio and the mens rea section 18 in analyzing Charlie’s criminal liability7. The Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of Cunningham interpreted malicious to mean that the defendant takes a risk knowing that his actions would cause harm and yet, goes ahead with the same action8. Therefore, it is arguable that Charlie must have known that playing such game using knives might result in grievous bodily harm. As earlier noted, this will remain an issue for the jury to decide. Looking at the harm caused on Joey by Rachel-where Rachel hit Joey’s nose with a frying pan injuring-could also be considered malicious or intentional. Both Rachel and Charlie are faced with a liability of inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm. However, their cases will be looked at differently. For Rachel, it is important to first consider whether the harm was directed at Joey, which according to the case facts extrapolated above, it was not; it was directed to Charlie. However, according to the principle of common law, that of Transferred Malice, if Rachel intended to harm Charlie and an injury occurred, such as the injury on Joey nose, this creates a whole offence9. This is also what happened in the Latimer case10 in which the defendant intended to harm a man by swinging a belt but instead harm another woman, was, according to the ruling by Lord Coleridge C.J, “if there is a malicious intent from a person towards another, and in the event, he instead injures another person, he is guilty in the eyes of the law’11 Therefore, Rachel will be criminally-at least according to the doctrine of Transferrable Malice-liable to injuring and dislocating Joey’s nose. This doctrine, according to some scholars such as Ashworth, results in criminal liability for injury or damage, which would normally be considered an accident12. This is also the case with the criminal liability that Charles may face with regards to the grievous bodily injury suffered by Monica-a fractured arm. This may not basically be considered to fall under the Transferred Malice doctrine, but can be argued using the same principles of the doctrine13. This is because, by raising her arm up still holding the scissors, Monica thought Charlie about to once again cut a big chunk of her hair, and as such ran outside so that to avoid. However, she bumped onto to Joey and fell down fracturing her arm. This, in relation to the Transferred Malice doctrine14 can be argued that initial malicious intent by Charlie, resulted into Monica fracturing her arm. Therefore, Charlie is also criminally liable for Monica’s fractured arm. In conclusion, it is clear that, the actions by Charlie are in contradiction with section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 186115, and that only the Jury, in their will may defend them. It is likely that she would be charged under section 20 of the same act that requires only a basic intention. Rachel, on the other hand, is criminally liable to the injury suffered by Joey under the Transfer of Malice doctrine, so is Charlie for the harm caused on Monica-fractured arm. What is clearer is that; Charlie and Rachel are criminally liable for their actions under the Grievous Bodily Harm doctrine. Joey and Monica are not in any way criminally liable. (1230 words) Bibliography Allen, Michael J., Textbook on Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2011). Ashworth, A., ‘Interpreting Criminal Statutes’, 1991. Ashworth, A., and M. Blake, ‘The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law’, 1996. Ashworth, A. J., Transferred Malice and Punishment for Unforeseen Consequences, 1978, 77. Card, Richard, Sir Rupert Cross, and Philip Asterley Jones, Card, Cross & Jones: Criminal Law (18th edn, Oxford University Press 2008). Clarkson, Christopher M. V., Understanding Criminal Law - Understanding Law Series (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2005). Glazebrook, P., Blackstone’s Statutes on Criminal Law 2011-12 (Oxford University Press 2011). Herring, Jonathan, Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2010). ‘The elements of a crime: actus reus and mens rea’ in , no date. ‘Draft Criminal Law Bill 1993’ (Law Commwealth 1993). Offences Against The Person Act 1861 R v Cunningham [1957] 2 Q.B 396; [1957] All E.R 412, CCA R v Latimer L.R 17 Q.B.D 359 Read More