Murder and Manslaughter Issues - Essay Example

Murder and Manslaughter Introduction Most countries divide the act of killing in to two broad categories known as murder and manslaughter. Manslaughter applies where the perpetrator is less culpable and usually turns on to his state of mind (Mens Rea) or the circumstances that led to the wrongful killing.1 Although it differs from country to country, murder under English law is regarded as such when the offender has intent to kill and also to cause bodily harm which causes death. Manslaughter is considered in circumstances where the offender did not intend to kill but was grossly negligent or in the event that the offender causes death in the process of carrying out an illegal act.2 According to Sir Edward Coke, murder is applied where a person of sound memory and age unlawfully kills in any country another human being under King’s peace with malice, which is premeditated as expressed by the party or implied by the law such that the wounded person dies within an year and a day out of the same. 3 Actus Reus To conclude that the person should be held under actus reus, there first of all has to be unlawful killing and the act of the offender must have been the established cause of death of the victim.4 The killing must be of another human being and under queen’s peace which means stipulates that killing of an enemy in war is not murder. However, the death after an year and day was removed in the law reform act of 1996.5 Mens Rea Under this, there is the malice afterthought. In R v Moloney (1985), the House of Lords concluded that nothing less than the intention to kill or cause bodily harm would be seen as malice afterthought. Just foreseeing the death of a victim as probable was not sufficient. There are two things to be considered under Mens Rea, first the intention to kill where murder is identified as a crime of specific intent.6 The intent in this case could be direct or oblique. In direct intent, the offender desired the death. In oblique, the death is foreseen by the offender as virtually certain, however, not desired for its own sake. Secondly, the intention to cause grievous bodily harm which was accepted under as sufficient mens rea for murder since if the offender was willing to inflict serious body harm, then he had no way of knowing certainly knowing the victim will not die. Intentional body harm is evidence that a victim could die. 7 Intention In the case of Anthony the political activist who set up bombs in order to get attention for what he was lobbying against, genetically modified crops, a couple of considerations can be identified in this case. First, in order to appropriately identify under which statute to prosecute, the intention behind the crime should be considered.8 What was Anthony’s real intention? It is clearly pointed out that Anthony’s real intention was to be heard, to attract attention to his cause which was lobbying against genetically modified foods. The first bomb was timed to go off at three am on a quiet side street on a Sunday. Here the offender, it can be argued, did not have any intention of killing since he picked a time when people are unlikely to be on the streets and also on a quiet isolated street. If he had any intention of killing, he would have picked a busy street and on a day and time when it is likely to be flooded with human traffic. As such, there is no evidence to kill or cause grievous bodily harm in this case. Anthony did not intend to inflict harm or death to the police officer who was there by mere coincidence doing his patrol duty. In this case therefore, the death of the policeman can be seen as involuntary manslaughter. This can be defined as the unlawful killing of another person without intention.9 Unlike in voluntary manslaughter, this is not a crime that results from passion but from improper use of skill or care in the process of committing unlawful acts .10 There are three types of involuntary manslaughter. Criminal negligence manslaughter, unlawful act manslaughter and subjective recklessness manslaughter. Criminal negligence manslaughter is when the death of a victim is as a result of recklessness or high degree of negligence. Unlawful act manslaughter is when the death of a victim is caused by the offender when committing an unlawful act and in most cases a misdemeanour.11 This usually happens when the death of a victim is as a result of another act likely to cause serious physical harm to a human being. In many cases, it occurs when committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanour. In subjective recklessness, the offender foresees a risk as a possible consequence of his act and still takes that risk and in all circumstances, it is unreasonable for him to do so.12 In the first case of killing committed by Anthony, the intention was not to kill the police officer who was on patrol. It was not premeditated since all he wanted to do was get attention for his activism. Therefore, this can be taken as involuntary manslaughter since the wrongful killing was committed in the process of committing another unlawful act, which was bombing. This can be considered as unlawful act manslaughter.13 Case study, R v Woollin [1999] AC 82 House of Lords The actus reus for murder is the unlawful killing of a person as a result of an act or omission by the offender. Conversely, the mens rea for murder is malice afterthought or intent. What can be considered as an intention is rather difficult a concept to define. The intention can either be oblique/ indirect or direct.14 Many murder cases fall under direct intent and are usually easily identifiable since the offender makes clear his or her intentions. In the case of Woollin, the father lost his temper which led him to pick up his son, throwing him across the room. Eventually, the boy landed on a hard surface where he fractured his skull and died. The father argued that he had no intention of killing, or causing such harm and no malice afterthought. The jury found the man guilty of murder since he must have realised that there was enough risk he would cause serious injury to the boy and as such there was intention to cause harm to the child. However, Woollin appealed and the House of Lords substituted the murder charge with manslaughter. This was because there was material misdirection which further expanded mens rea of murder. In this case, murder conviction was out of question. 15 Mostly, the actions of the offender are enough to show motive or intention but it becomes difficult when they do not. It is the court that dealt with this issue of intention since it was not clear in this case. The primary issue in this case was intention and the jury was directed to establish whether the death or serious harm inflicted was a virtual certainty and whether the offender had established this as the case. Franklin [1883] 15 Cox CC 163 This is an example of constructive manslaughter. The offender threw a box into the sea of Brighton pier hitting a swimmer and causing his death. In this case, there was the unlawful act of killing which constitutes to a criminal offence. However, the intention was not to kill the swimmer.16Identifying intention is the guide to establish whether Anthony should have been tried for murder or manslaughter. It is quite clear though that his intention was not to cause harm or kill the police officer. Dias [2002] 2 Cr App Rep 96 In this case, both the appellant and Edward Escott were drug addicts who pooled their money and bought heroin worth £10. The offender prepared the solution of heroin and gave the syringe to the victim who injected himself with the syringe and died. The trial judge ruled that self injection with heroin was an unlawful act.17 He also pointed out that aiding and abetting such an offence would make the offender liable as a second party to the unlawful act which led to the death of Escott. The jury found the offender guilty of manslaughter. This was almost similar to Dias [2002] 2 Cr App Rep 96 where the appellant prepared a solution of heroin and then handed it over to a fellow resident in the hostel who injected himself and died. The offender was convicted of supplying a class A drug and constructive manslaughter. However, he appeal on the ground that there lacked direct causal link between the unlawful act of supplying the drug and the death of the victim. The conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed. The unlawful act in this case was the victim injecting himself with heroin which the accused aided. The injection in this case was the direct cause of death.18 Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981 In this case, two boys were playing with a revolver which had two bullets in the chamber but neither was opposite the barrel. As such, they believed it would not fire. One of the boys directed the gun at the other and fired. The chamber turned as the boy pulled the trigger killing the other boy. He was accused of manslaughter. However, the court held that there was no unlawful since the victim did not think the gun would go off and as such did not apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.19 The same case of manslaughter applies in the second bombing where Anthony had placed the explosives under another car parked outside a department store. Usually, the department store was closed on Mondays and the bomb was set to go off on a Monday and at noon. The bomb killed Richard a homeless man who had taken shelter from the rain. It can be argued that Anthony had envisioned proper time and place where there would be no human being in the vicinity as the department store was usually closed at that time on Mondays. Therefore, he was not aware that the homeless man would be in the area therefore exposed to danger. His intention was not to cause harm to the homeless man who ended up dying. There was no virtue certainty. However, this case differs slightly from the first one and can be identified as subjective reckless manslaughter since the offender had committed the first act of manslaughter. So he must have been aware that planting a second bomb would likely lead to the death of another person. He ignored this fact and went ahead to detonate a bomb. In the second case, besides manslaughter, Anthony can also be charged under the criminal act damage of 1971. This is because he unlawfully destroyed property belonging to another person and intended to cause damage using explosives. He acted recklessly as it can be argued since the likely damage to property after the bomb was apparent and still went ahead to take that risk. The criminal damage act stipulates that to be found guilty under this act, a person must have caused damage to property that belongs to another person, and that the damage was caused unlawfully and there was intention to cause the damage or recklessness.20 Under section 2 of the same act, it is considered an offence to destroy property and intending to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to put to danger another person’s life. Case study R v. R and G This is a case involving two boys aged 11 and 12 who went camping for a night without the consent of their parents. The boys found some old papers which they lit outside the co-op and threw them under a wheelie bin. They did not put them out since they thought the papers would go out naturally. The papers caused fire in the whole wheelie bin which spread to other areas including the co-op shop destroying property worth over one million pounds. The offender’s conviction was overturned.21 Death of Yasser The third case in Anthony’s bombing was where the bomb was placed in a litter bin on Deansgate which was also set to go off at the same time, noon on Monday. Yasser who was taking his lunch break received injuries as the bomb exploded and was taken to the hospital. He had internal injuries and the doctor failed to identify a ruptured spleen. Eventually, Yasser died. Following this incident, two people can be convicted for the wrongful death. First, Anthony can be accused of manslaughter as he conducted unlawful act of detonating an explosive which caused gross bodily harm to the victim. However, that it can be argued was not his intention. The second case was that of the doctor who failed to identify the ruptured spleen of the victim as the hospital staff had many patients to attend to. The doctor can be accused of gross negligence manslaughter. He breached the duty of care owed by him to the patient which eventually led to the death.22An example of this can be seen in the case of R v Adomako (1995) where the offender an anaesthetist in charge of a patient during an eye operation, in the process of operating, the oxygen pipe disconnected which led to the death of the patient. He was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.23 Conclusion Anthony’s unlawful act of detonating bombs was what culminated in to the death of the three victims. However, the cases lack mens rea for murder. As such he can only be held accountable for manslaughter as his intention was not to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. His intention was to attract attention to himself and his cause and had not contemplated killing anyone as it is clearly seen by the places and the time he picked for his bombs to go off. However, he can also be prosecuted under the criminal damage act as he was aware his actions were likely to damage other people’s property. In the third case, the doctor’s negligence does not break the chain of causation. The original injury, which was as a result of the bomb, is still a viable cause of death. Therefore, Anthony is still guilty of manslaughter. Some people may posit that death under such circumstances as a virtual certainty. However, mens rea in this situation cannot be satisfied as he timed the bombs to go off in places he assumed people would not be present. He clearly did not see this coming. Bibliography Allen, M. J. Textbook on criminal law. (2013). ANON and International Assoc of Chiefs of Police 515 North Washington Street Alexandria VA 22314. PREMEDITATED MURDER.( Legal Points, 79.) January 01, 1977). Blom-Cooper, L. Getting away with murder? Controversy over the arcane distinctions between murder and manslaughter has resurfaced with the Law Commissions latest report. (Counsel, 8-11. January 01, 2006) Collins, M. Handbook of European homicide research: Patterns, explanations and country studies. (New York: Springer. 2011). CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Manslaughter - Reduction to manslaughter - Facts raising possibility of manslaughter verdict - Judge in murder trial asking counsel whether should direct jury on manslaughter - Prosecution and defence counsel both declining direction on manslaughter - Whether judge having duty to direct jury on obvious alternative offence arising on the evidence irrespective of parties wishes – (R v Coutts - HL. (January 01, 2006). The All England Law Reports, 4, 4, 353). Dimond, B. Liability for death: manslaughter, murder and other criminal offences. (British Journal of Nursing (mark Allen Publishing), 13, 14, 22.January 01, 2004). Dine, J., Gobert, J. J., and Wilson, W. Cases and materials on criminal law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010). Elliott, C. Recent Developments in the English Law of Involuntary Manslaughter. (European Journal of Crime, 3, 3, 272-280. January 01, 1995). Farrier, M. D. The distinction between murder and manslaughter in its procedural context. (The Modern Law Review, 39, 4, 414-431.July 01, 1976). Gobert, J. Searching for coherence in the law of involuntary manslaughter: The English experience. (Criminal Law Forum : the Official Journal of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, 6, 3, 435-471. October 01, 1995). Herring, J. Criminal law: Text, cases, and materials. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012). Judging evil: rethinking the law of murder and manslaughter. (Choice reviews Online, 36,8,36-4761. April 01, 1999). Leigh, L. H. Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide: Proposals for Reform of the Law. (Justice of the Peace, 172, 43, 700-703. October 25, 2008). Lyons, B. Medical manslaughter. (Irish Medical Journal, 106, 1, 26-7. January 01, 2013). Martin, I. (Murder. February 06, 2003) Matthews, P. Involuntary manslaughter: a view from the coroners court. (Journal of Criminal Law London-, 60, 2, 189-200. January 01, 1996). Mitchell, B. Distinguishing between Murder and Manslaughter in Practice. (The Journal of Criminal Law, 71, 4, 318-341. August 01, 2007). Mitchell, Barry, and Mackay, R. (n.d.). Investigating involuntary manslaughter: An empirical study of 127 cases. (Mitchell, B. and Mackay, R.d. (2011) Investigating Involuntary Manslaughter: an Empirical Study of 127 Cases. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 31 (1) Pp. 165-191). Reduction of murder to manslaughter. (Journal of Criminal Law London-, 64, 589- 591. January 01, 2000). Reed, A. Involuntary manslaughter and assisting drug-abuse injection. (The Journal of Criminal Law, 67, 5, 431.January 01, 2003) Sherman, S. J., and Hoffmann, J. L. The psychology and law of voluntary manslaughter: what can psychology research teach us about the “heat of passion” defence?.( Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 5, 499-519. December 01, 2007). Slapper, G. Involuntary manslaughter. (The New Law Journal, 6734, 342. January 01, 1996). Spackman, M. P., Belcher, J. C., Calapp, J. W., and Taylor, A. An Analysis of the Effects of Subjective and Objective Instruction Forms on Mock-Juries Murder/Manslaughter Distinctions. (Law and Human Behaviour, 26, 6, 605-623. December 01, 2002) Terblanche, S. S. Sentencing murder and the ideal of equality. (Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, 44, 1, 97-122. March 01, 2011). Read More