Criminal Law Undergraduate - Case Study Example

1. Karl and Sami are competing for Great Britain in the final of a track cycling event at the Olympics in Stratford. Sami is aware that Karl is the favourite to win the event. Before the final, Sami loosens a screw on Karl’s bike, hoping that this will cause the wheel of the bike to seize up. Sami is so desperate to ensure that Karl is out of the race he shuts his mind to the thought that any seizing up of the wheel could throw Karl off his bike and into the path of the other competitors. Karl rides the bike in the race and whilst the wheel seizes up, and Karl is thrown off the bike, he is unhurt. Sami wins the race. As Sami is on the winner’s podium to receive his medal, Leila, in protest that her home was compulsorily purchased to make way for the Velodrome, where the cycling has taken place, throws paint over the suit of the official presenting the medals. Discuss the criminal liability (if any) of Sami and Leila under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 Introduction In order to determine the criminal liability of Sami and Leila it will be necessary to consider any possible offence that might have been committed under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. For completeness, consideration should also be given to any form of assault charge that either might face following their actions. Consideration will need to be given to the requisite actus reus and mens rea of any possible offences, as well as any possible defences each party might raise to minimise their actions. In order to determine possible charges it will be necessary to examine the wording of the 1971 Act, to analyse the required elements of the offence. Criminal Damage Act 1971 Under s1(1) of the 1971 Act it states (1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. Applying this to the scenario above, it would appear that both parties are likely to be charged with an offence under this Act. When considering the criminal liability of Sami it is also necessary to consider the seriousness of his actions, as the loosening of the screw on the bicycle was likely to cause Karl to have an accident, which could have been fatal. The 1971 Act deals specifically with such a possibility. Under s1(2) it states (2)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another— (a)intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and (b)intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered; shall be guilty of an offence. Having examined the definition of criminal damage by statute, it is necessary to consider whether Sami and Leila possessed the necessary mens rea and actus reus for the offence. Mens rea According to the 1971 Act, a person can be said to have the necessary mens rea for the offence if they either intended to damage the property of another, or were reckless as to whether their actions might cause such damage. It is therefore not necessary to prove that they had direct intention, but merely that they ought to have perceived that their actions might cause damage. One of the elements the court will consider when determining whether the actions of Sami could amount to endangering the life of Karl would be whether a reasonable person might foresee that removing the screw might cause the other person to have a serious accident. The test for foreseeability is based on what the reasonable man might have foreseen1. The definition of a reasonable man can fluctuate according to the characteristics of the accused2. In DPP v Daley and McGhie3 Lord Keith stated (5) that the defendants conduct which caused the fear was unlawful; and (6) that his conduct was such as any sober and reasonable person would recognise as likely to subject the victim to at least the risk of some harm resulting from it, albeit not serious harm. It could be argued that Sami ought to have foreseen that his action might cause serious harm or injury4 to Karl or might even lead to his death5. The prosecution would not have to prove that the harm was intended but that he was reckless6 as to what might happen7. When determining recklessness the courts commonly refer to the cases of R v Cunningham [1957]8 and Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell [1981]9. In the Cunningham case the court determined that the defendant was aware of the risk involved in his action yet continued in his venture. Caldwell widened this application by considering recklessness in situations where the accused either considered the risk to be minimal or that there was no risk at all. In R v Reid [1992]10 Lord Keith stated ‘absence of something from a person’s state of mind is as much part of his state of mind as is its presence. Inadvertence to risk is no less a subjective state of mind than is disregard of a recognised risk’. In R v G [2003]11 the defendant where determined to be guilty of criminal damage on the grounds that they had been reckless with regard as to whether their actions might cause damage to the property. Similar in R v Lees [2003]12 the court held that the actions of the defendant in the manner in which he flew the helicopter where reckless, and that as a result of his actions damage was caused to the aircraft and the lives of those present at the scene where endangered. In R v Offer [1996]13 the defendant was found guilty of endangering life as a result of the reckless manner in which he drove his vehicle. It would seem obvious that by tampering with the screw Karl would be likely to crash, and his life could have been endangered14 or would be likely to suffer serious harm15. For this reason, Sami is likely to be charged with criminal damage with the intent to endanger life or being reckless as to whether his actions might endanger the lives of others. In relation to the actions of Leila, she is likely to be charged with causing criminal damage to the suit of the official. It would be obvious to anyone that the action of throwing the paint at the official would cause damage to his suit. The court could argue that the intention to cause such damage was formed when she picked up the paint and proceeded to the location where the race was taking place. The actual action of throwing the paint completes the offence. The actus reus of the offence in the case of Sami occurs when he loosens the screw on the bike. With Leila, the actus reus occurred when she threw the paint over the official who was presenting the medals16. In R v Gisborne [2005]17 the defendant was found guilty of criminal damage after throwing paint stripper over several cars. The court stated that the defendant ought to have known that such an action would be likely to cause damage to the vehicles. Assault It could be argued that Leila might also face charges for assault. Under s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 a person can be found guilty of battery merely by the intentional or reckless touching of another person without the consent of that person and without lawful excuse. In the extreme case of R v Scammell [2001]18 the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter when his action of throwing paint at the victims house and stones through his window caused the victim to have a heart attack and die. The court held that although the defendant did not know of the health problems of his victim, he ought to have been aware that his actions might cause the victim fear of being attacked, which could result in the victim dying as a result. In the Scottish case of Bryans v Guild 199019 the defendants were found guilty of assault when they threw eggs and water bombs at their victims. Conclusion From all of the above, it can be concluded that Sami would be likely to be charged with criminal damage with the intent to endanger life, whereas Leila is likely to be charged with criminal damage alone. Leila might also face charges for assault, if the courts are of the opinion that her actions might cause the official to fear for his safety. The deliberate throwing of the paint might be regarded as battery under s39 of the CJA 1988, for which she could then face charges. Sami might be able to avoid a charge of endangering life if he can show that he did not think that Karl could be harmed by his actions, however, this is unlikely, since a the reasonable man would have perceived the likelihood of injury occurring. Bibliography Allen, C, (2001), Practical Guide to Evidence, 2nd Ed, Cavendish Publishing Ashworth, A (2006) ‘Principles of Criminal Law’, 5th Edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford Ashworth, A and Blake, M The presumption of innocence in English law [1996] Crim LR 306 Clarkson, C M V & Keating H M , (2007),Criminal Law text and Materials, 6th Ed Sweet & Maxwell: London Cook, K, James, M, and Lee, R, (2006-2007), Core Statutes on Criminal Law, Law Matters Publishing Elliott, C & Quinn, F, (2000), Criminal Law, 3rd Ed, Pearson Education: London Glanville Williams, (1983), Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd Ed, Stevens & Sons: London Glazebrook, P R, Statutes on Criminal Law, 10th Ed, 2001, Blackstone Press Limited Herring, J, (2005), Criminal Law, 4th Ed, Palgrave Macmillan Law Masters Huxley, P, & O’Connell, M, (2006), Statutes on Evidence, 5th Ed, Blackstone’s Inns of Court School of Law, (2003),Criminal Litigation & Sentencing, Oxford University Press: Oxford Murphy, P, (2002), Blackstone’s Criminal Practice, Oxford University Press: Oxford Smith & Hogan, (2005), Criminal Law, 11th Ed, Oxford University Press:Oxford Smith, J.C. and Hogan, B, (2002), Criminal Law, 7th Ed, Butterworths: London Smith. J C, The presumption of innocence (1987) NILQ 223 Read More