A-Level Law in Action - Essay Example

A-Level Law in Action Part A A person is liable for murder, if he causes the death of another person, either by act, omission or intent to kill, or cause grievous injury1. Mens rea for murder is established, if the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm. This was stated in R v Moloney2; and upheld in R v Hancock and Shankland3 and R v Woollin4, by the House of Lords. In Hancock and Shankland it was emphasised that the jury had to determine whether there was intention on the part of the accused5. As such, murder comprises of, the elements of Actus Rea (guilty act) and Mens rea (guilty mind). Mens rea varies from recklessness to intention. Direct intent connotes a situation, wherein the accused’s motive was to ensure some definite outcome. For instance, in R v Steane, the accused lent his services to the enemy, in order to protect his family from harm. Consequently, his conviction was set aside6. On the other hand, indirect or oblique intent arises when the accused can foresee the outcome, as being highly probable, and the accused does not desire that outcome. In Hyam v DPP, the accused’s intention had been to terrify the victim and not to cause her death, when he set fire to her house. Their Lordships upheld the conviction for murder, as the accused could anticipate that his act could result in death or grievous bodily harm7. In the present problem, Bob with the intention of killing Alice, exploded a petrol bomb. As a consequence, Alice lost her life. Bob caused her death intentionally .This constitutes, the crime of murder, and Bob will be accordingly held liable. In Goodfellow, the accused was convicted of constructive manslaughter, for having caused the death of his family, while attempting to set his house on fire. It is important to note that he had no intention of causing the death of his family8. Bob had claimed that it was not his intention to cause harm to anyone other than his wife, Alice. This is untenable, on account of the doctrine of transferred malice. The latter states that if an individual has the Mens rea to commit a specific offence against a particular person, and if that crime had been committed by that individual against some other person, then the Mens rea is transferred to the actual victim. This is borne out by the decision in R v Mitchell, wherein the accused had caused the death of an old woman, by striking an old man who fell on that old woman. The latter died subsequently, due to the complications that had arisen in her treatment. The accused was convicted of manslaughter9. Consequently, Bob is guilty of manslaughter, in respect of Karishma. Mens rea denotes culpability. However, in R v Kingston, it was required of the jury to arrive at an opinion of guilty, only if his indecent assault had been occasioned by the clandestinely induced drug10. Since, the defendant was notorious for his deviant behaviour; it was held that the drug merely served to reduce his inhibitions11. Moreover, in R v Cheshire the Appellate Court upheld the accused’s conviction for murder. It also held that the subsequent injuries did not result in the breaking of the chain of causation. Hence, Bob cannot plead that there was a break in the chain of causation, when Jake died of asphyxiation. Therefore, in respect of Jake, Bob is guilty of constructive manslaughter; because Jake had died of asphyxiation, on account of the arson perpetrated by Bob. Part B Mens rea has three major concepts; first intent, second knowledge and third recklessness12. Criminal intent or Mens rea is usually indispensable for an act to be deemed a crime. The intentional performance of an act, with knowledge and willingness, constitutes intent, form the legal point of view. All the same, this definition takes into its ambit, instances, wherein negligence or recklessness, serves to establish the necessary criminal intent. Moreover, in the context of acts that had originally been unintended, criminal intent is said to be inherent, if the results of such action were certain to transpire13. Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damages Act 1971, deals with the illegal destruction or damage to the property of others. In our case, Bob had exploded the petrol bomb, and caused considerable damage to the building, as well as the fence. He acted in a reckless manner, during the destruction caused by him. Hence, he is guilty of an offence, as per the provisions of this sub – section. Next, section 1(2) of the Criminal Damages Act 1971, states that while causing damage to any property, if the accused intends to endanger the life of another, or behaves in a manner that endangers the life of others, then the guilty of an offence, under this sub section. Bob had endangered the life of many people including Karishma, while causing damage to the office where Alice was working. In addition, this section requires the presence of intent or recklessness, to determine whether life will be endangered, consequent to the damage caused to property. In the Attorney General’s reference relating to a charge, in respect of attempted aggravated arson, the Court of Appeal held that it was adequate to establish specific intent to cause damage and that the defendant had acted recklessly, regarding threat to life. It was also opined that the defendant’s mental state, under these circumstances, consisted of all that was required to establish guilt for the full offence14. Moreover, section 1(3) of the Criminal Damages Act 1971, states that destruction is caused by means of fire, then the offence will be treated as arson15. Since, Bob had exploded a petrol bomb, which caused a fire in the building; he will be liable for an offence of arson. In R v G the House of Lords set aside a conviction under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 197116, for the reason that accused had been reckless, as to whether his act would cause grievous harm17. Lacey had stated that intent is more than carrying out what had been planned or aimed at being done; it also includes actions whose results were foreseeable by the defendants18. Although, Bob did not have the intention to endanger the other inmates of the office, he could foresee the consequences of his action. Therefore, he had the necessary intent, as per the provisions of the Criminal Damages Act 1971. Bob is guilty of offences under the Criminal Damages Act 1971. Specifically, he is guilty of arson under section 1(3) and intentionally or recklessly endangering life under section 1(2) of this Act. List of References Brenda Mothersole and Ann Ridley, A-level law in action, Cengage Learning EMEA, 2000 Criminal Damage Act 1971 Criminal Damages Act 1971, Chapter 48, 14 July 1971 Fiona Brookman. Understanding homicide. SAGE (2005) Hyam v DPP [1974] 2 All ER 41 Michael T. Molan, Mike Molan, Duncan Bloy, Denis Lanser. Modern criminal law. Routledge Cavendish, (2003) Noel Cross. Criminal Law & Criminal Justice: An Introduction. SAGE Publications Ltd, (2009) Quazi Haque & Ian Cumming, Intoxication and legal defences, Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, Volume 9, 2003 R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353 R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025 R v Steane [1947] 1 All ER 813 R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] 1 All ER 641 R v Woollin [1998] 4 All ER 103 R v Mitchell [1983] 2 All ER 427 R v G [2003] 4 All ER 765 Richard G. Singer & John Q. La Fond, 2007, ‘Criminal law: examples & explanations’ Aspen Publishers Online Read More