The Filed Case of Manslaughter - Essay Example

?Legal Skills Case Analysis work Table of Contents Question 3 Question 2 3 Question 3 4 Question 4 4 Question 5 4 Question 6 6 Question 7 6 Question 8 6 Question 9 7 Question 10 8 Question 11 8 Question 12 9 Question 13 9 Question 14 9 Question 15 10 Question 16 11 Question 17 11 A) Dawson, Nolan And Walmsley Did Not Know That The Victim Had A Bad Heart. 11 B) ‘Harm’ In the Context of the Second Element of Manslaughter Means Physical Harm and Does Not Include Emotional Disturbance 12 C) ‘Harm’ In The Context Of The Second Element Of Manslaughter Includes Injury To The Person Through The Operation Of Shock Emanate From Fright, As This Can Produce Devastating And Lasting Effects, For Instance Upon The Nervous System 13 D) The Trial Judge Had Misdirected the Jury 13 E) In Deciding Whether The Reasonable Man Would Have Seen The Risk Of Harm, The Test Can Only Be Undertaken Upon The Basis Of The Knowledge Gained By A Sober And Reasonable Man As Though He Were Present At The Scene Of And Watched The Unlawful Act Being Performed 14 Question 18 14 Question 19 15 Question 20 16 References 18 Question 1 The filed case of Manslaughter (Unlawful Act Resulting in Death) was conducted in a petrol filling station. The situation led to the death of the attendant of the petrol filling station, who was being robbed by three masked men. Among the three men, two robbers, who were carrying deadly weapons, threatened the 60 year old attendant, being completely unaware that he was a patient of heart disease. In order to defend himself, the 60 year old attendant had no other choice but to press the alarm button. The alarm did manage to make the masked robbers run away from the spot, but the shock later caused the death of the attendant after the police arrived due to heart attack. After 11 months, the three masked robbers confessed that they had attempted to rob the attendant. Correspondingly, the original trial took place on June 20, 1983 in the Crown Court of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (University of South Pacific, 2002). Question 2 The actual trial began in the year 1983 at Crown Court at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where the trial judge was Glidewell J. (University of South Pacific, 2002). Question 3 In the original trial, Nolan was convicted for offences, which encompassed robbery, attempted robbery and manslaughter among the prime. Accordingly, it was learnt that Nolan was sentenced to a six year imprisonment for offence of robbery, seven years for attempted robbery and nine years custody for manslaughter. Also, his sentence versed that all these penalties would be executed congruent to each other. Thus, altogether, Nolan was sent to nine years of imprisonment (University of South Pacific, 2006). Question 4 In this case, there were three appellants and all of them were sent to imprisonment for more than one felony. The appellants included Brian Dawson, Stephen Thomas Nolan and Ian Walmsley. On the other hand, it has been observed that Dr. Hasan, who was the consultant doctor of Mr. Black, was aware of his patient’s health condition. Moreover, on the day when the incident actually took place, Dr. Hasan, after a through check-up, affirmed that the heart condition of Mr. Black to be stable. Hence owing to these aspects, he was a prime individual in this case and can be considered as the main respondent in the court of appeal (University of South Pacific, 2006). Question 5 As per the instances of the event, on 20th of June1983, the court of Appeal handed down its final decision, wherein the three convicts were penalised according to their contribution in the crime. Dawson was penalized with 9? years of imprisonment; Nolan was sentenced to nine years of imprisonment; and Walmsley was sent to 7? years of imprisonment (University of South Pacific, 2002). Question 6 As per the case, it was identified that F. J. Muller, Q. C., Helen Paling and J. Evans acted as counsel for the appellants since he had all the evidences of the actual medical condition of Mr. Black, who died because of heart attack. Accordingly, Lord Justice Watkins was the respondent for the Appellants (University of South Pacific, 2002). Question 7 There were three judicial members that together formed the jury members of the court of appeal in this case. In relation to this, Lord Justice, Watkins, Mr. Justice Wood and Sir John Thompson acted as the jury members in the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, Lord Justice, Watkins was responsible authority to enter the final verdict (University of South Pacific, 2006). Question 8 It has been ascertained from the case that F. J. Muller, Q. C. and Helen Paling were assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, to act as the solicitor on behalf of the appellants, Brian Dawson and Stephen Thomas Nolan. In the similar context, F. J. Muller and J. Evans were assigned to act as the solicitors for the appellant Ian Walmsley. On the other hand, James Chadwin Q. C. and Roger Thorm were assigned to act as the solicitor on behalf of the court (University of South Pacific, 2006). Question 9 The judgement in the Court of Appeal was a reserved judgement, as the convicts were sentenced to imprisonment with the charges of manslaughter on the basis of medical evidences. These evidences advocated that there was a greater probability that attempted robbery was responsible for the heart attack suffered by Mr. Black, which ultimately caused his death. Moreover, the verdict was also issued against the appellants on the basis that the terror or rather the traumatic experience suffered by Mr. Black had undoubtedly contributed towards emotional or physical disturbances, which led to his vulnerable state. However, both the medical witnesses, including Dr. Hasan and a Home Office pathologist, admitted that they were not sure if Mr. Black’s death had been caused owing to the attempted robbery. It was just an assumption that the death of Mr. Black had been a result for the attempt of robbery executed by the three appellants. At the same time, there was no substantial evidence to support Mr. Black’s demise as a consequence of the robbery. Nonetheless, the appellants were also not aware of the fact that Mr. Black was suffering from chronic heart disease. Contextually, it can be strongly admitted that due to the lack of proper evidences and assumptions based upon the doctors’ verdict, the court had to issue judgement. Hence, it is apparent that the court’s order or the judgement against the appellants, bring charges of manslaughter was principally due to the unsatisfactory evidences available to the court of appeal. Correspondingly, there is further possibility that Mr. Black’s demise was not due to the attempt of robbery made by the appellants (University of South Pacific, 2002). Question 10 The trial judge did not totally consider the specific proof to equate with the legal proof, as each of the appellants came under the breach of law and were considered to be guilty for attempted robbery. However, certain degree of complications prevailed in relation to the case of ‘manslaughter’. The act committed by the convicts was therefore considered to be as an unlawful act, owing to which, they were charged for ‘attempt to robbery’ (University of South Pacific, 2002). However, the concerning factors that had certainly put the trail judge in dilemma was that the medical papers of the deceased contained various statements which affirmed the criticalities of the deceased person in terms of heart disease. It even showed that Mr. Black’s condition was very ailing and he could have died anytime. A minor breakdown or an event could have been enough to result in his death. Hence, the medical report had put the trial judge in dilemma if this case would be required to be treated as a case of ‘manslaughter’ (University of South Pacific, 2002). Hence, it is apparent that the scientific proof was not considered as equal to legal proofs by the trail judge. Question 11 The court of law considered the case of Rapier (1980) 70 Cr.App`.R. 17, in order to depict the fact that there are certain possibilities where a particular shock or emotional disturbance might result in the death or injury of people. Since this case is directly inclined towards defining such factors, the jury members considered the Rapier case while delivering the judgement (University of South Pacific, 2006). Question 12 The case reveals that ‘this Court’ in RAPIER (1980) 70 Cr.App.R.17, seems to have had no difficulty in comprehending that one effect of shock can prove harmful to result in serious injury to the person. Contextually, the term, ‘this court’ reveals that the Rapier (1980) 70 Cr.App.R.17 was heard in the Court of Appeal (University of South Pacific, 2006). Question 13 Watkins LJ was in the favour for withdrawing the case from the jury. His role in this particular case can be ascertained to be critical. He apparently did not support the decision of the court. Watkins felt that the convicts should have been punished for their offences. And not only they should have been punished for their act of ‘attempt to robbery’, but they should also have been held under the breach of law for ‘manslaughter’. He strongly felt that the case should not have been withdrawn and the final decision from the Court of Appeal should have been made at the earliest (University of South Pacific, 2002). Question 14 As per the final decision taken by the court, the appeal on the ground 4 was not successful because of various reasonable factors. It was observed that the condition of the deceased was stable just before the incident. However, the regular medical reports of Mr. Black revealed that the condition of the deceased was not quite stable and he had the possibility of sudden death at any time due to a trauma or a shock. However, the court did not find strong evidences so as to connect the event of death with an act of ‘manslaughter’ (University of South Pacific, 2002). Thus, appeal on ground 4 failed. The appeal in the ground 5 proved to be realistic and logical as it supported the original cause of the death. Ground 5 clearly stated that if the heart attack had started before the event of attempted robbery, the blame could not be laid upon the convicts for ‘manslaughter’. There were strong possibilities that the deceased died because of his poor health. Nonetheless, it can be argued that both grounds of (4 & 5) did not provide a detailed idea or evidence about the original cause of Mr. Black’s death and the responsibility of the three masked men thereupon. Consequently, the appellants were relieved from the charges of manslaughter (University of South Pacific, 2002). Question 15 It has been learnt from the case that the gun brought by Dawson during the robbery was not a real one, but it was just a copy of a particular model. The main intention for this was to frighten the attendant, i.e. Mr. Black, so that the robbery could be easily executed. However, in accordance to the entire case, it was assumed that the attendant had lost his life owing to the trauma of facing a gun, which he thought to be original. Hence, the gun was considered as a one of the prime material facts by the court. Moreover, the medical evidences was also taken as a fact by the court, as it does not rule out the possibility that Mr. Black’s death was not connected to the robbery. The medical experts were quite sure about the aspect that the death was owing to the robbery attempted, as on that very day the condition of Mr. Black’s heart had been quite satisfactory and stable (University of South Pacific, 2006). Question 16 Based on the material facts, the court decided that the three appellants cannot be convicted on charges of manslaughter as the evidences presented in this regard were quite unsatisfactory and therefore, could not be considered enough to make the judgement regarding manslaughter. However, despite nullifying the manslaughter charge, the appellants did not experience any reduction in their sentenced imprisonment owing to the severity of crime that they had executed in the past, other than the manslaughter. Hence, the judgement did not include any reduction in sentenced imprisonment (University of South Pacific, 2006). Question 17 A) Dawson, Nolan And Walmsley Did Not Know That The Victim Had A Bad Heart. It is evident that the three appellants, i.e. Dawson, Nolan and Walmsley, were certainly not aware of the fact that Mr. Black was suffering from a bad heart. Physically, Mr. Black was quite weak as he was suffering from heart disease and had already experienced severe attacks in the past. He was in a constant consultation with his regular doctor. Furthermore, the doctor revealed that his heart was in such a condition where there always remains a high probability of sudden death arising even from a small shock. In addition to that, investigation never suggested that the appellants were aware of the health condition of Mr Black. Owing to this aspect, the court decided to nullify the previous judgement which advocated charges of manslaughter against the appellants (University of South Pacific, 2006). B) ‘Harm’ In the Context of the Second Element of Manslaughter Means Physical Harm and Does Not Include Emotional Disturbance From the above discussion, it is quite evident that the appellants, i.e. Dawson, Nolan and Walmsley, were not aware of the health conditions of Mr. Black. Moreover, the gun they had brought in order to execute the entire robbery was also not real. However, owing to the fact that Mr. Black was not aware of the reality of the gun, he got frightened and went into trauma, which further resulted in his death. On the basis of this aspect, the court in the initial trial enforced manslaughter charges on the appellants. In the later trials related to the case, the court, based on the evidences, declared that the harm caused by the appellants to Mr. Black was not physical but emotional. This aspect does not include or satisfy the second element of manslaughter, on the basis of which, charges can be imposed. Hence, this was one of the grounds on which the decision of revising the manslaughter judgement in the court of appeal was executed (University of South Pacific, 2006). C) ‘Harm’ In The Context Of The Second Element Of Manslaughter Includes Injury To The Person Through The Operation Of Shock Emanate From Fright, As This Can Produce Devastating And Lasting Effects, For Instance Upon The Nervous System It has been noted that killing and harming, are among the two elements that forms the primary criteria for a case of manslaughter. However, the second element, i.e. harm, usually signifies physical injury, but not emotional disturbances. Nevertheless, harm, in certain cases also includes shock that an individual experiences from fear. But these statements were not considered in the judgement of the case where the previous decision of manslaughter charge was nullified, neglecting the fact completely that the appellants actually caused a shock to Mr. Black, which further resulted to his death (University of South Pacific, 2006). D) The Trial Judge Had Misdirected the Jury The statement of misdirection of the Jury was also taken into consideration in the judgement. It has been analysed during the court proceedings that under a particular misdirection, the jury depicted that emotional disturbances were enough to cause harm. Furthermore, owing to the misdirection, the jury were never in a place to depict that the appellants were aware about the health concerns of Mr. Black. Hence, convictions for manslaughter were unsatisfactory and were inclined to be quashed in the judgement of the court of appeal (University of South Pacific, 2006). E) In Deciding Whether The Reasonable Man Would Have Seen The Risk Of Harm, The Test Can Only Be Undertaken Upon The Basis Of The Knowledge Gained By A Sober And Reasonable Man As Though He Were Present At The Scene Of And Watched The Unlawful Act Being Performed The test of the facts related to the case can only be done with the presence of the knowledge of appellants as well as reasonable man present during the entire unlawful act. However, with the absence of such a person in the scene, the facts acquired with respect to this particular case lacked the required precision. Owing to this reason, the second element of manslaughter, which encompassed physical harm, cannot be affirmed as evidence behind the alleged manslaughter. Hence, these reasons forced the court to consider the case of manslaughter as unsafe as well as unsatisfactory, which further resulted in nullifying the charges against the appellants (University of South Pacific, 2006). Question 18 In this context, it can be admitted that any illegal act leading towards the death of an individual, either intentionally or unknowingly, need to be prosecuted. In this case, the appellants were not intentionally involved in harming Mr. Black, but there act can be associated with the reason behind his death. At the same time, it is of paramount importance to identify whether the appellants had made deliberate attempt to manslaughter or it was just a co-incidence. While deciding upon the case of Dawson, Nolan and Walmsley and their involvement in the ‘manslaughter’ case, the court would have taken into consideration, the various factors relating to the time of crime, the exact health condition of the deceased at the time of the event, the medical reports of the deceased and all the scientific details. These evidences would have further been investigated from the last 7 days till the date of the death. It would have given a proper evidence for the cause of Mr. Black’s death. Also, scientific analysis of these instances could have provided a clear picture; as to which, the case could have been referred as a case of ‘manslaughter’ (University of South Pacific, 2002). A detailed study about these instances would have provided a very clear picture. As per the case, it was recognised that the health condition of the deceased was not at all good, but just after the alarm, his condition worsened. This clearly depicts that the alarm only added to worsening the situation as one of the reasons for death of the deceased. Thus, t should have clearly been regarded as a case of ‘manslaughter’ (House of Lords, 2007). Question 19 This would be a very different case, but yet reflects some elements of ‘manslaughter’ in it. As defined earlier, ‘manslaughter’ is an activity which directly do not reflect cruel act of killing a person. However, the main intention in a case of ‘manslaughter’ is to cause some amount of harm to the targeted individuals. It may be related to monetary harm and also may relate to harming a person by way of robbery and other activities, which may directly or indirectly harm the person targeted. Nevertheless, ‘manslaughter’ does not involve killing of people directly. In all cases of ‘manslaughter’, deaths seem to occur because of instances in which, a person wants to intentionally harm another person or even in other terms that may involve the self-interest of a person (University of South Pacific, 2002). Regarding this case, where an old woman named Mavis stands in a queue for ordering food, but even after being told by Joe, ignores him and tries to get into the queue crossing his path. This incident led to a terrific accident in which Joe accidently pushes the lady and as the lady had a bad knee, she could not control herself and falls on her head hitting the concrete pavement. This event eventually led to the death of the old lady. But however, this case could not be considered as a case of ‘manslaughter’ because there was no intention deciphered by Joe to kill the lady. In this case, Joe pushed the old lady in order to enter the queue, as he was starving. Joe did not have any intention of harming Mavis. He just pushed her because he wanted to get in first (Lawnix, 2013; Great Britain: Law Commission, 2006). Correspondingly, rather than considering it as a case of ‘manslaughter’, it should be considered as a tragic accident of unnatural death. This incident will definitely lead to a case of unlawful activity, but may not be considered as a case of ‘manslaughter’ (University of South Pacific, 2002). Question 20 It can be observed from the previous question that Mavis was an old lady who died owing to the unintentional push by Joe. However, it can also be affirmed that her age was also a factor that led to her death. The above answer depicts that there cannot be a case of manslaughter arising due to push by Joe, as it was not intentional; but, it was an accident, which according to the law, cannot be considered as a crime. In similar situation, where the person died was a 15 year boy instead of an old lady, the answer regarding the charges of manslaughter would have been the same. It is primarily because the actual concern in this case was the intention or the approach of the convicted and not the age of the victim. Both the cases can therefore be considered as an accident, irrespective of the age and physical health of the victim. Hence, it can be affirmed that Joe did not satisfy the 2nd element of manslaughter. This case can also be justified with relevance to the case of Freddo v. State, 127 Tenn. 376, 155 S.W. 170 (1913) (Lawnix, 2013; Great Britain: Law Commission, 2006). References Great Britain: Law Commission, 2006. Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide: Project 6 of the Ninth Programme of Law Reform; Homicide. The Stationery Office. House of Lords, 2007. R.V. Kennedy (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Report. [Online] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071017/kenny.pdf [Accessed July 24, 2013]. Lawnix, 2013. Freddo v. State – Case Brief. Cases. [Online] Available at: http://www.lawnix.com/cases/freddo-state-tn.html [Accessed July 24, 2013]. University of South Pacific, 2002. Court of Appeal before Lord Justice, Watkins, Mr. Justice Wood and Sir John Thompson. Manslaughter-Unlawful Act Resulting in Death-Act Exposing Victim to harm Meaning of Harm-Act That So Shocked the Victim as to Physical Injury. [Online] Available at: http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/la205_criminal_law_and_procedure_1/cases/R_v_Dawson.html [Accessed July 24, 2013]. Read More