Criminal Law Problem - Assignment Example

Criminal Law work Problem By 29, Jan Word Count: 1096 Question One Criminal liability attaches if the accused commits an unlawful act (actus reus), with the requisite guilty mind (mens rea). In the scenario question, Victoria dies while in a secret air-tight compartment where she had been hidden by the accused. The main issue in the scenario is whether the accused is culpable for the death of Victoria or whether the act of the police officers to arrest him, and hold him for more than 24 hours while the deceased was in the compartment is to blame or in way excused culpability for her death from him as an intervening cause. The guilty act/omission of the defendant must be the factual and legal cause of the death. To establish factual causation, the court in White1 established the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s act, would the victim have suffered harm? If the answer is negative, factual causation is established. Legal causation requires that the death be attributable to a culpable act. However, the culpable act does not have to be the only cause. In Benge2, it was held that it is sufficient if it was more than minimal. However, some contributing acts may excuse the defendant from liability. If subsequent acts occur to break the chain of causation, the accused is not liable in law. Nevertheless, regardless of such intervening acts, where the acts of the accused remain the substantial and operative factors of the death, the defendant is not excused from culpability. This was established in the case of Smith3. Actus reus must be accompanied by mens rea. For the crime of murder, it must be proved that the accused had ‘malice aforethought’.4 That is, the accused had the intention to cause the unlawful death. Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person 1861 requires that the accused wounded or caused grievous bodily harm with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. In Mohan,5 the court held that foresight of death or injury was not tantamount to an intention. The test to establish presence of intention was laid by the house of the Lords in Nedrick.6 The court stated that the defendant must recognize that death or serious injury is virtually certain to result from his conduct. Additionally, the House of Lords decision in Woollin7 concluded that the jury could only infer intention when satisfied that death was virtually certain from the defendant’s conduct, and that the defendant appreciated this fact. Gerald will be charged with the crime of murder of Victoria. But for his conduct to hide Victoria in a secret air-tight compartment, she would not have died. His act amounts to an unlawful act, since it was in furtherance of another crime of kidnapping. His act is the legal cause of Victoria’s death, since she suffocated for lack of air. Although the act of police to arrest and hold him for 24 hours may amount to an intervening factor, his conduct remained the substantial and operative cause of her death. Since oxygen is vital for human biological processes, it is virtually certain that denial of the same leads to death. Gerald was aware that the compartment was airtight and that the oxygen inside would last Victoria for only 24 hours. Although his primary intention was not to kill, the jury is allowed by law to infer such an intention. The court in Mathew & Alleyne8 held that where the jury finds that the defendant appreciated virtual certainty of death, it was impossible for the jury not to find that the defendant did not intend the death. In conclusion, Gerald shall be guilty of the crime of murder. This is because he committed the actus reus of the offence, that is, caused the death of Victoria, and he did so with the necessary intention. Question two In this scenario, the issue is whether Malcolm is criminally culpable for a conduct done in furtherance of a practical joke. Can the law attach criminal responsibility for an act which is intrinsically not risky to cause an injury to the person? Death resulting from an unlawful and dangerous act or gross negligence constitutes involuntary manslaughter. In larkin,9 the court held that if the defendant commits an unlawful and dangerous act and quite inadvertently causes death, he is guilty of manslaughter. To prove constructive manslaughter, the prosecution must show that the defendant’s act was unlawful, is a crime, is dangerous, and that the unlawful act was the cause of death of the victim. For the act to meet the threshold required, it must be a crime of commission. The prosecution must prove that the defendant had the intention to commit the unlawful and dangerous act or was reckless as to the outcome of his conduct.10 However, case law shows that there need not to be an unlawful act. In Lamb, the defendant killed his friend in course of the game of Russian roulette. He was participating in a joke which he did not deem dangerous. Despite the absence of an unlawful act, the defendant was convicted for manslaughter.11 The unlawful act must be inherently dangerous: predisposing the victim to some harm. Such harm need not be serious or foreseeable to the defendant.12The test applicable is an objective test:13 would a sober and reasonable person have recognized the danger? It is not a requirement that the unlawful act be directed at the victim.14 With regards to causation, the unlawful act must be the cause of death and there should be no intervening factors. 15 In the scenario Malcolm removes brakes from Tom’s bicycle. This act constitutes criminal damage of Tom’s property and thus qualifies as an unlawful act. Riding a bicycle without brakes is inherently dangerous to the rider and to other pedestrians, and especially given the topography of Tom’s route to school. Some harm would have come in Tom’s way, even if it was not serious harm. An objective test, and not a subjective test, applies to determine the dangerousness of Malcolm’s act. Consequently, it is immaterial that he knew Tom to be a skilful rider and wore helmet and would thus not be predisposed to any danger. The court shall consider whether a reasonable person of his age would have recognized the danger. It is immaterial that Tom’s death was not foreseeable. Applying the ‘but for’ test, his unlawful act was the factual cause of Tom’s death. In conclusion, Malcolm is culpable of involuntary manslaughter, because he committed an unlawful act which resulted in Tom’s death. It is immaterial that he had no intention to cause death or that in fact such death was not foreseeable. References Books Janet Loveless, Criminal Law 3rd edition (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2012) Case law R v Benge (1865) 4 F. & F 504 R v Church [1965] 2 All ER 72 R v Dhaliwal (2006) EWCA Crim 1139 R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 CR App R 23. R v larkin (1942) 29 Cr App R 18 R v Matthews & Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192 R v Nedrick [1986] 3 All ER 1 R. v. Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 (HL) R v White [1910] 2 KB 124 Read More