Criminal Liability of a Murderer - Case Study Example

Criminal liability of Bruiser According to English law, the definition of murder is given as the killing of another person whether by act or omission having either the intention to kill (with "malice aforethought") or to cause grievous bodily harm1. In order to establish a cause of action for willful murder, there are two factors that must be established (a) the causing of the death of another human being and (b) the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which is referred to as ‘malice afterthought’ and (c) the physical act of injury must match with a mens rea or the requirement of the ‘guilty mind’. In the event the actus rea and the mens rea are concurrent, then the accused person will be deemed fully liable for the act and be penalized for first degree murder. The establishment of mens rea is particularly important to establish guilt, since according to Edward Coke who first proposed the theory of mens rea, “an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.”2 When a criminal act – especially murder – has occurred, it is also necessary to establish a concurrence with the mens rea.3 The case of R v Lamb4 set out the precedent that mens rea “is an essential ingredient in manslaughter”. The criterion that is used is by assessing whether a reasonable man would have been able to assess the risk inherent in his actions that caused harm, which will be sufficient to establish mens rea5. However, a recent significant development in this area is the case of R v Andrews6 (2003), wherein the Court upheld a conviction for manslaughter although it was a strict liability offense. The prosecution was not required to prove mens rea in that case7. This could impact significantly upon the extent of Bruiser’s liability and the possibility of conviction. The context within which an offense occurs forms an important part of the sentencing and in making a determination of the extent of liability of a person when mitigating circumstances exist, the accused could be deemed to have a diminished responsibility for his actions and will be liable for the lesser charge of manslaughter. However, there is also provision in English law for transferred malice, whereby a person intending to cause grievous bodily harm to one person may actually cause it to another by some slip or change in circumstances, nevertheless the accused will be deemed to be as guilty as if he had intended to carry out the damage on the second person. Moreover, in making the determination about whether grievous bodily harm has taken place, the Court will also look into particular characteristics of the victim such as health and age8. In the case of Bruiser, there is also the issue of provocation by Alf, which could be a mitigating factor. The defense of provocation as laid out by the Homicide Act of 19579 consists of a two part test (a) defendant suffered from a temporary loss of control while killing the victim and (b) this defense will be available only if a reasonable person would have reacted the same way10. A recent case has enforced the “reasonable” objective standard in the case of R v James and Karimi11 therefore in Bruiser’s case, it is likely that the Court will question whether his provocation was great enough to cause the violence of his act. Recent recommendations of the Law Commission12 have mooted a new definition of provocation and suggest restriction of this defense unless defendant is reacting to a threat of serious violence13. The Commission classifies this “gross provocation” as being caused by the “fear of serious violence towards the defendant or another” and intends to apply this mode of defense for example in cases of victims of domestic abuse who have borne a great deal and then killed in self defense, while the loss of control that causes killing by jealous lovers may not qualify under the Reform proposals. In Bruiser’s case, it is a clear loss of control that has caused his violent act and the question is; was there sufficient provocation? This cannot be said to be the case since usually, there must be adequate provocation for a violent act. While a physical threat of use of a deadly force would be considered a justifiable cause, verbal provocation like Alf’s would not generally be considered serious enough to justify violence. In the case of R v Dawson14 the need to consider physical harm rather than merely emotional harm was also emphasized. Applying all the above criteria, it may be noted that in Bruiser’s case, the provocation will not be deemed to be strong enough to justify an act of violence that resulted in death. Two factors stand against him and indicate an intent to cause grievous bodily harm; (a) the fact that he was previously a heavyweight boxer (b) the fact that he wore several heavy jeweled rings on his hand which could potentially be turned into a weapon with his boxer fist . Thus the act of his striking out with his fist would fall into the category of potentially dangerous, in that the average person would recognize that it could cause harm to another person15. However, the mere foreseeability of a death or grievous bodily harm as a probability will not be deemed to be sufficient grounds to bring about a conviction16. In determining the extent of Bruiser’s liability, the Court will first try to determine his intent behind the act. In the case of R v Nedrick17 Lord Lane C J clarified the application of the concept of mens rea in murder as follows: “Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendants actions…” In making this determination, the issue of “malice afterthought” or transferred malice as mentioned above, will also be taken into consideration. Therefore, the fact that Bruiser actually intended to harm Alf and not Dot is not likely to be a factor of any significance. It will not matter against whom the violent act is directed, it is the consequences and the intent that will be assessed by the Courts. For example, in the case of R v Latimer18 the defendant dealt a blow to one person but someone else was wounded, yet the defendant was convicted of maliciously wounding the victim. As established in the case of R v Dawson19 the possibility of physical harm as opposed to emotional harm should be foreseeable to the defendant and will determine his liability. In this case, Bruiser with his knowledge of boxing and the strength of his blows could have reasonably been expected to anticipate that harm could and would have been caused by his blow. Moreover, as established in R v Andrews20 it may no longer be mandatory to establish mens rea in pinning guilt. According to English law, it is enough to establish the intent of the defendant to cause serious bodily injury, irrespective of the fault element. Thus, a person will be liable for conviction for a crime which turns out to be more serious than he foresaw or contemplated.21 This is the case with Bruiser who may not have anticipated Dot’s death, but will nevertheless be liable for it. Moreover, since his intent against Alf was malicious or with the intent to cause harm, therefore it is likely that this will be transferred to Dot and Bruiser may be liable for maliciously causing the death of Dot. While Bruiser cannot claim provocation on grounds of an actual physical threat, he can still receive a mitigated sentence if he can establish that his act was the result of a sudden and temporary loss of self control and was not premeditated22. This would not be difficult for Bruiser to prove and the lack of premeditation would hold in his favor. Another factor that will be of importance in making the determination on Bruiser’s liability will be how far his act is responsible for causing the death. This is where Bruiser can plead for a lesser conviction on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Since the Court will also take into account factors such as the age and health of the victim, Dot’s heart condition will be an important consideration. Bruiser’s action cannot be held to be wholly responsible for her death, it is possible a blow may have caused injury, however it was Dot’s heart condition that played a large role in her death and can be viewed as the substantive cause of it. Therefore, in conclusion, Bruiser will have to face liability for causing Dot’s death, since he cannot draw upon provocation as a defense and transferred malice makes him liable for his act. Mens rea and premeditated intention cannot be established conclusively for this crime, however Bruiser’s boxing background and knowledge of foreseeable harm will not go in his favor. Bruiser can however successfully plead a case of loss of self control, and Dot’s health condition causing the death. He may face a charge of involuntary manslaughter but can plead the defense of diminished responsibility based on Dot’s health condition which he may have been unaware of, in order to reduce the length of sentence. Bibliography * Criminal Justice Act of 2003, Schedule 15, Section 224 (4) and (6) * Coke, Edward. (1797) Institutes Part III, Chapter 1, folio 10 * Allen, Michael (2005). A textbook on Criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. * R v Lamb (1967) 2 QB 981 * DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976) AC 500 * R v Andrews (2003 * Elliot, Catherine and Quinn, Frances, 2004. Criminal Law 5th edn. Pearson Education * Section 3 of the Homicide Act of 1957 * R v James and Karimi (2006) EWCA Crim 14 * Law Commission, 2005. Bringing the law of murder into the 21st century * R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150 * R v Church (1966) 1 QB 59. * R v Woollin (1998) 4 All ER 103 (HL) * R v Nedrick (1986) 1 WLR 1025 * R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 * Williams, Glanville, 1983. Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd ed. pp. 250-251 * R v Duffy (1949) 1 All ER 932 Read More