Analysis of Criminal Law - Case Study Example

Criminal Law Jake and Lucy lived in the same house in different bedrooms. Jake invited Lucy and her boyfriend Robin to a party that he was hosting. Lucy was a staunch opponent of drugs and Jake wanted to supplant Robin, hence, he surreptitiously added Lysergic Acid Diethylamide to Robin’s drink. The LSD affected Robin, who became disoriented and Jake called the NHS, in order to obtain help. The NHS asked him to admit Robin, who had become unconscious, to a hospital. Jake allowed Robin to sleep on his sofa and did not take him to a hospital. After some time Robin passed away. The post mortem report revealed that Robin had been suffering from a heart ailment that would result in heart failure if there was any additional stress to the heart. The report also disclosed that Robin had consumed crack cocaine in addition to LSD and these drugs were construed to have created the fatal additional stress on Robin’s heart. The main offences recognized by English law, under the category of homicide are murder and manslaughter. In common law murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. In order to establish that a crime constitutes a murder, it has to be proved that the victim’s death was due to an act by the perpetrator, which had an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the victim1. A killing is classified as manslaughter if death occurs due to gross negligence or a criminal act whose perpetrator intended to cause injury or knew that serious injury could transpire2. The actus reus requirements for the offence of gross negligence manslaughter are that An act that is criminal in nature is necessary for the commission of a criminal act. Actus reus has to be established, beyond any reasonable doubt, by the prosecution. Failure to take action, when there is a legal duty to act, makes such an act of omission criminal. Actus reus, mens rea and concurrence constitute the three components of crime3. A duty of care was owed by the accused to the deceased. Such duty could be forced by common law, statute, contract or acceptance by an individual. Jake has a duty of care towards Robin who is a guest at his party. Breach of such duty of care was indulged in by the accused and to determine such a breach the civil law of negligence is utilized. The main issue to be settled is whether Jake had acted or omitted to act in a manner befitting that of a reasonable person. The answer is that Jake had behaved as an unreasonable person, because despite the advice of the NHS personnel, he did not take Robin to the hospital. Death of the deceased was due to such breach. Jake did not take any concrete steps to save Robin’s life and merely made him rest on the sofa, which resulted in the latter’s death. Thus, it can be construed that Robin’s death can be attributed to John’s breach of duty of care. Such breach was serious enough to be classified as gross negligence and therefore a crime. Jake’s behaviour was definitely not that of any reasonable person placed under similar circumstances. In fact his behaviour was positively malafide. Therefore, the breach indulged in by Jake was tantamount to gross negligence4. In R v. Instan, the defendant lived with her aunt who developed gangrene in her leg. The defendant neither fed her nor did she inform the hospital authorities and due to this the aunt expired. The court held that a duty was imposed upon the defendant to supply the deceased with sufficient food to maintain life, and that; the death of the deceased had been hastened by the neglect of such duty. Hence, the defendant was held to be guilty of manslaughter5. Similarly, Jake did not make any attempt to hospitalize Robin, which resulted in the latter’s death. Therefore, he is guilty of manslaughter. The criminal act of killing a person without any intention, malice or premeditation can be called as manslaughter. There should be no intention either express or implied to cause death. If there is a malicious intent or premeditation then it becomes murder. Manslaughter has been distinguished from murder. There are three types of manslaughter according to the law. First, involuntary manslaughter, in cases of involuntary manslaughter the prosecution is required to prove that the acts of the accused had resulted in the death of a person, that the acts of the accused were dangerous to human life by virtue of their nature, or such an act was performed with lack of care and the accused must have had sufficient knowledge that his conduct posed a threat to the life of some other individual. Second, voluntary manslaughter, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused had committed an unlawful act of killing another person in a moment of passion, and that there had been sufficient provocation to cause such passion. Such provocation may be a result of fear, rage and anger. Third, foresight manslaughter, in which the accused had knowledge that his conduct would be dangerous to the lives of others. As such the foresight can be considered to be a proof of the intention to kill another person, which would fulfil the requirements for conviction in cases of murder.6 If the prosecution fails to establish, on the basis of the evidence, that the accused had committed an act of murder then the court would deal with the case as one of manslaughter and delivers its judgment accordingly.7 An accused is considered to be guilty of manslaughter if he provides Class A scheduled drugs to the deceased, even if the deceased had administered the drug, which had caused his death. The House of Lords evaluated the merits of several cases such as R v. Dalby8, R v. Dias9, R v. Richards10, R v. Rogers11 and R v. Finlay12 in this regard. In the case of Misra13, the Court of Appeal considered the test of liability for manslaughter by lack of care and gross negligence and its compliance with the requirement of legal certainty in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, the appellants, Misra and Srivastava were doctors who were responsible for the post operative care of patients. The deceased was a patient who had been operated upon in order to treat an injured tendon in his knee. Subsequent to the surgery, the wound was severely infected and the patient sustained a toxic shock syndrome, to which he later succumbed. The Court of Appeal held the defendants to be responsible for their gross negligence in providing treatment to the patient14. Manslaughter is a criminal act of lack of care but mere negligence is not sufficient to prove it. In a case of medical negligence, the court had held that the negligence had to go beyond a matter of compensation between subjects and show such disregard for the safety of others so as to amount to a crime against the state15. This approach was followed in another case in which death occurred due to negligent driving16. The House of Lords opined in R v. Adomako that manslaughter takes place, whenever: a. The accused owed a duty of care to the victim. b. Such duty was not upheld. c. The accused displayed grossly negligent conduct. d. The victim lost his life due to such conduct17. Criminal law has always distinguished between actions and omissions and criminal liability in the context of the duty to act generally arises in employment contracts. For instance, in R v. Pittwood the railway level crossing gate was not closed by the operator and the court held him guilty of manslaughter of the victim18. The intention of Jake was to intoxicate Robin, in order to spoil the relationship between the latter and Lucy. For this purpose he used crack cocaine and LSD, which he mixed in a drink, prior to offering it to Robin. Once, Robin became intoxicated, Jake became frightened, because Robin lost consciousness. Jake called the National Health Service, who advised him to admit Robin to a hospital immediately. Jake did not carry out these instructions, even though he was fully aware of the fact that if Robin were not admitted to a hospital, the outcome could be fatal. Consequently, the death of Robin is due to Jake’s negligence to take Robin to a hospital. Therefore, Jake is guilty of the crime of manslaughter. If Jake had offered these drugs to Robin, then there would have been no manslaughter, because there would be no mens rea, which constitutes the crime. Moreover, Jake was not aware of the fact that Robin would suffer a fatal heart attack if his heart was subjected to sudden stress, which these drugs were capable of causing. Bibliography 1. Andrews v. DPP (1937) AC 576. 2. Hyam v. DPP (1975) AC 55. 3. Misra and another (2004) EWCA 2375, 8th October 2004. 4. Molan, Michael T. Bloy, Duncan. Lanser, Denis. Modern Criminal Law. 2003. Routledge Cavendish. P. 25. ISBN: 1859418074. 5. Molan, Michael T. Bloy, Duncan. Lanser, Denis. Modern Criminal Law. 2003. Routledge Cavendish. P. 175. ISBN: 1859418074. 6. R v Adomako (1994) 4 All ER 935. 7. R v. Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8. 8. R v Dalby (1982) 1 WLR 425. 9. R v Dias (2002) 2 Cr App R 96. 10. R v. Finlay (2003) EWCA Crim 3868. 11. R v. Instan (1893) 1 QB 450 (CCR). 12. R v Nedrick (1986) 83 Cr. App. R. 267. 13. R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37. 14. R v. Richards (2002) EWCA Crim 3175. 15. R v Rogers (2003) 1 WLR 1374. 16. Samaha, Joel. Criminal Law. 2004. Thomson Wadsworth. P. 54. ISBN: 0534629911. 17. Stone, Richard. Offences Against the Person. 1999. Cavendish Publishing. P. 55. ISBN: 184314039X. Read More