Analysis of Criminal Law - Case Study Example

Advice to Gharmi: Before anything I would like Gharmi to understand the legal aspect of her act and where she stands in a Court of law in the light of given facts and circumstances. Culpable homicide is the causing of death by doing : a) an act with the intention of causing death; b) an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or c) an act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death Without one or other of those elements, an act, though it may be in its nature criminal and may occasion death, will not amount to the offence of culpable homicide but would rather come under manslaughter. '(Rahee,(1866)Unrep Cr C6)' The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. Actus reus and Mens Rea both should be proved by the prosecution. "The general basis for imposing liability in criminal law is that the defendant must be proved to have committed a guilty act whilst having had a guilty state of mind. The physical elements are collectively called the actus reus and the accompanied mental state is called the mens rea. It is the fundamental duty of the prosecution to prove both of these elements of the offence to the satisfaction of the judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof the defendant will be acquitted." (http://www.lawteacher.net/Actus%20Reus%20Lecture.php ) To illustrate it in a better manner, in an English case, however, where a man ran at his mistress to hit her and the women jumped out of the window and thus met her death, it was held that the jumping out of the window was contributed to by the appellant's unlawful act and on that ground alone a verdict of murder might well have been returned but it was mercifully reduced to manslaughter.(R. v. Curley (1909) 2 Cr App R 109) Criminal Intention and the knowledge of the probable consequences of the act committed are important to prove in order to bring an action under homicide or murder. Where a person had an altercation with his wife in the street outside their home during which he struck her and she fell unconscious and in his trial to drag her away in that state caused a fatal injury, he was convicted of manslaughter. It was decided by the court that the defendant cannot be set free as it can be said initially the intention was not there but later on the subsequent action that caused the fatal injury was done to conceal the commission of the unlawful assault.(R. v. Leburn,(1991) 3 WLR 653(CA) The Court of Appeal has laid down in R. v. Nedrick that knowledge or foresight of the probable consequences of an act cannot take the place of intention.(1986)3 All ER 1 CA) It can be said that Culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. According to the Homicide Act 1957 s.1 "Where a person kills another in the course or furtherance of some other offence, the killing shall not amount to murder unless done with the same malice aforethought (express or implied) as is required for a killing to amount to murder when not done in the course or furtherance of another offence." Throughout English Criminal Law it is the duty of prosecution to prove the accused's guilt. In every charge of murder, if the prosecution have proved homicide, namely, the killing by the accused, the prosecution must prove further that the killing was malicious and murder, as there is no presumption that the act was malicious, and at no point of time in a criminal trial can a situation arise in which it is incumbent upon the accused to prove his innocence, subject to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. Where intent is an ingredient of a crime there is no onus on the accused to prove that the act alleged was accidental.(Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions,1935 AC 462) We can however, distinguish our case as per the s.3 of the Homicide Act 1957. Under it the defendant / accused can raise the defense of Provocation. According to s.3 Homicide Act 1957 "Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man." Here, according to the facts of the case Gharmi and Peter constantly had violent arguments for the last two years, Peter taunting Gharmi for her looks. On the fateful evening when Peter returned from office and found that his evening meal has not been prepared. Gharmi was unwell but Peter unconcerned about her health began shouting on her as he got another frivolous reason to abuse her. He had a loud argument with her and again taunted and severally hurt her mentally by telling her that she was a lazy, good for nothing, inadequate wife. Todays arguments and constant taunting and bickering exceeded the threshold of Gharmi's patience and feeling very upset she withdrew into the kitchen and whilst she was making Peter's supper, she put rat poison both into his rice-baryani and the tea-pot. On returning to the dinning-room with Peter's food she placed the baryani before him on the dinning-table. Peter, ate the baryani and died 2 hours later. Now the prosecution will claim it that Gharmi's act resulted in the death of Peter. It will be further alleged that she had both the intention and the knowledge required to commit the act. It is a fact that Gharmi's act of putting rat poison in the rice-baryani and tea-pot resulted in the death of Peter. But, only knowledge can be attributed to Gharmi and that too in a limited sense. Gharmi was physically unwell and the state of mind she was in it can be said she was not in her proper senses and her faculties were deeply deranged due to the immediate act of insult and abuses that Peter heaped on her. It was a case of temporary insanity. In Bratty [1963] AC 386 it was held that "Where a disease of the body affects the mind resulting in violence and is likely to recur, it will be classed as insanity" The House of Lords again affirmed this approach to the concept of disease of the mind in:(R v Sullivan [1984] AC 156). The state of mind Gharmi was in it can be claimed that there was defect of reason behind the acts of Gharmi. "The disease of the mind must have given rise to a defect of reason which had one of two consequences: either (a) the defendant did not know the nature and quality of his act, or (b) he did not know his act was wrong. The phrase "defect of reason" seems to mean that the powers of reasoning must be impaired, not merely confusion or absentmindedness"( R v Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219) Another defence that can be taken by Gharmi is that she was sufficiently provoked by Peter that she was deprived of self-control by the grave and sudden provocation and that resulted in the brazen act.(Nokul Nushyo, 1867 7 WR(Cr)27) The provocation for Gharmi was grave and sudden and of such nature that it deprived her of the power of self control. The provocation to Gharmi was such that it will upset, not merely a hasty and hot tempered or hyper sensitive person but one of ordinary sense and calmness.(Sohrab,(1924) 5 Lah 67) In Gharmi's case and as decided by the Indian Supreme Court in the celebrated case (K.M. Nanavati, (1962) Bom LR 488 (SC) on the defense of grave and sudden provocation it was said the judges that the mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premediation and calculation. In the facts of the present case it is very clear that Peter has made Gharmi's life hell since last 2 years and the latest taunting and volley of abuses from Peter to Gharmi acted as the last straw and Gharmi completely lost her balance of mind to act rationally. So for the death of Peter neither intention nor knowledge can be attributed to Gharmi. For the second incident when Suraj after returning from school ate the poisoned food kept on the table and died as a consequence Gharmi can not be held accountable completely, neither intent nor knowledge can be attributed to her as the second act emanated from the first one and in fact it can be said that it was part of the same chain. She neither intended to kill her only child and nor foresee the unfortunate incident as she must be feeling very uneasy by the death of Peter and her role in it that she could not have acted rationally, it can be called as an accident. It can also be said that she didn't try to dispose of the evidence of the previous act by removing the food from the table. She didn't even try to defend herself by disposing the poisoned food, which a rational person would do in similar circumstances after the nerves have cooled down and having realized the gravity of his or her act. It clearly shows that Gharmi was not in her proper senses and was in a temporary bout of insanity. Seeing the case other way round if the court finds even a little hint of knowledge or intention in her act then the defense of grave provocation would come in and it can be pleaded that there is a thin line between intention and recklessness and in the light of 'Regina v. Woolin(1998) 4 ALL ER 103)' it can be argued that she could be convicted at most for Man Slaughter. Bibliography Ashworth, A., Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, 5th ed., 2006) RatanLal & Dhirajlal Criminal law. Wadhwa & Company. Read More