The Key Aspects of Criminal Law - Assignment Example

Criminal Law Question Amelias liability for Bills death taking into account relevant offences and defences. In the United Kingdoms, murder statutes, expressly prohibit the killing of another human being. The actus reus, or the culpable act, is used to denote the event on which a criminal offence is based. (Actus reus. 2006). The commission of the act, which is considered an action that is intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm to the victim, satiates the murder. In this case, the actus reus is Amelia setting fire to her husband, Bill. The mens reus of the murder, or the guilty mind would be in terms of two aspects, firstly the intention of causing death, or the intent to cause grievous body harm and almost all kinds of criminal offences require a demonstration of mens rea to endorse culpability of offence. (Mens rea. 2006). In this case, it could be seen that Amelia’s mens reus was to cause death to her husband and therefore, prima facie, Amelia is guilty of first degree murder, or manslaughter. However, there are mitigating circumstances, which shall presently be considered. It is seen that in this case, Amelia has been a victim of continuous torture and violence over a period of time and could be said to be suffering from battered wife syndrome. R v. Ahluwalia (1992) 4 AER 889 case: In the leading case of R v. Ahluwalia (1992) 4 AER 889, the woman killed her abusive and aggressive husband and claimed provocation as the precipitating cause for her actions. The Court questioned the jury as to whether an educated woman living in UK could have lost her self-will to such an extent that she needed to take recourse to murder her husband. The defence pleaded that the loss of self will was caused by the physical and emotional battering the wife had endured over a long period of time, which forced her to take such an extreme step. Considering the mitigating circumstances of the case, the Court called for a retrial on the basis of these fresh medical evidences emanating. (Judgments - Regina v. Smith (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The features in the Ahluwalia case was also seen in the R v. Thornton (No 2) 1996 2 AER 1023 which is akin to that of Ahluwalia case? In this case, the defendant claimed to be suffering from mental disease and the Court ordered retrial based on these extenuating grounds. (Judgments - Regina v. Smith (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Question 2: Amelias liability for her babys death paying particular attention to mens reus: When the mens reus regarding Amelia’s contribution towards the death of her baby is concerned, it is seen that in all probability, mens reus cannot be established, since there are no ostensible intention of either killing the baby, or causing her grievous bodily harm. Amelia had thrown the baby from the second floor of the house on the expectation that the passer-by, Claude would catch the baby, but to her anguish, he walked away, leaving the baby to fall on the pavement, suffer a fractured skull and later expired in hospital. In this case, Amelie would be guilty of contributory negligence for having allowed her child to drop down onto the street below, thus contributing to the child’s eventual death. It is necessary for the Courts to decide on the following aspects before passing a judgement in this case. 1. The Test of Contributory negligence to be applied in this case is whether Amelie had taken the same degree of care, which a reasonable person would have done under similar circumstances. (Contributory Negligence, Assumptions of Risk and Duties of Protection: Recommendation 30). 2. The standards to be applied for contributory negligence would be the same as that enforceable for pure negligence to serve as a determinant for assessing its levels. 3. What were the precipitating causes for throwing the baby on the streets below and what were the perceived dangers that prompted her to act the way she did. In this case, she may have felt that the baby would have suffered burns due to the fire in the house. 4. For determining the level of contributory negligence enforceable on the mother Amelie, the following factors have to be considered: i) Perceived harm that would have entailed had the action not been taken ii) The extent and gravity of such harm iii) The rationale of taking such safety measures to circumvent occurrence of harm iv) The benefits that could accrue due to such intervention. (Contributory Negligence, Assumptions of Risk and Duties of Protection: Recommendation 30). Question 3: Claude’s liability for the baby’s death? The mens reus for Claude’s action was his deliberate omission to save the child’s life. This case could be seen in the light of R v Miller (1983) 2 AC 161 House of Lords case when the matter of seeking coincidence with the mens reus with the actus reus was debated. In this case, however, the liability for wrongdoing flowed from Third person, Amelia, who was negligent for causing the death of her own child. However, in the R v Miller case, the defendant himself was liable for wrongdoing. There are two different methods by which omissions to act would constitute actus reus. Firstly, a person’s actions could comprise his/her duties or responsibilities, or in effect, failure would invoke blame and secondly, the act and the failure to act would make up of omissions. (R v. Miller (1983). 1994-2006). In the case of Claude’s liability, it is seen that he was not contractually bound obey Amelia’s request to save the child, although morally he ought to have done so. Since he was not duty bound to obey Amelie, he cannot be held responsible for the baby’s ultimate demise. Question 4: Dr. Darrens liability for the babys death. There are several aspects of Dr. Darren’s medical treatment of Angelie’s child, which indicates medical negligence, not amounting to murder or manslaughter In the first place, he deferred the diagnostic aspects of the injury and thus delayed treatment. Further, he was not in a position to provide necessary life support systems to have the child’s life saved. Finally, by terminating the treatment after two days, he had unwittingly contributed to the child’s mortality. Medical negligence is a critical and controversial aspect of modern medicine. In real terms, negligent treatment may involve the following: Factor 1: Inability to, or delay in diagnosing a disease Factor 2: Causing delay in providing the appropriate treatment or referral for medical problem Factor 3: Inability to perform surgery with reasonable care and dexterity Factor 4: Incapacity to report correctly on test results; or Factor 5: Lack of professional capacity to provide post-operative care with reasonable care and skill. (Medical Negligence. 2007). In this case, it is seen that Dr Darren may be held responsible by a Court of competence for medical negligence caused by factors I and 2 above. In this case, the mens reus could be seen in the context of omission on the part of the attending doctor, Dr. Darren, to provide immediate medical attention to the child and the actus rues could be the accident, which results in skull fracture to the child. Although the accident could be due to contributory negligence arising out of overdose of medication and wife battering syndrome on the part of Amelia, it is seen that Dr Darren cold be held for professional negligence, dereliction of duty and underperformance with regard to standards of care for the child and these aspects form the mens reus in this case. It is common knowledge that in cases of determination of existence of negligence the test would be what a man of ordinary prudence and reasoning power would have done under such circumstances. However, in the case of health care professionals, it is necessary that their standard of care would be higher than ordinary people and they need to exercise it for the wellbeing of their clients. In the event that there have been reduced levels of health care, unbecoming of health specialists as a direct result of which clients have suffered damages or losses, the doctor would have to indemnify the sufferer for losses suffered calculated in monetary terms. The aspects of clinical negligence was reinforced in British cases like Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 (HL) where the applicant claimed negligence had been present while administering overdose of oxygen cause the child to become blinded. However, “House of Lords held that when Plaintiffs injury attributable to a number of possible causes, one of which was the Defendants negligence, the combination of the Defendants breach of duty and the Plaintiffs injury did not give rise to a presumption that the Defendant had caused the injury.” (Butler 2000). In the Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771, the courts accepted the decision of the attending doctor who decided not to ‘intubate’ a child patient as the correct procedure. Under the circumstances, overruling other opinions, the Courts rejected the appeals of the appellants and held the attending doctor as not guilty of professional negligence since medical evidence weighed more than opinions. (Judgments - Bolitho v. City and Hackney House Authority. 1997-98 Although prima facie, there seems to be a case of professional negligence on the part of Dr Darren, the Courts would have to take a holistic approach towards the entire case history and proceedings before arriving at a judicious decision. All the facts of the case and the circumstances surrounding the case needs to be assessed in depth before a judgement could be delivered. Bibliography Actus reus. (2006). [online]. The K-Zone. Last accessed 16 May 2008 at: http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_ActusReus.html BUTLER, Philip A (2000). Problems of Causation and Quantification in Clinical Negligence. [online]. P A Butler. Last accessed 16 May 2008 at: http://www.deanscourt.co.uk/legal/medical_negligence.html Contributory Negligence, Assumptions of Risk and Duties of Protection: Recommendation 30. [online]. Law of negligence Review. p. 124. Last accessed 16 May 2008 at: http://revofneg.treasury.gov.au/content/Report2/PDF/ContribNeg.pdf Judgments - Bolitho v. City and Hackney House Authority. (1997-98). [online]. House of Lords. Last accessed 16 May 2008 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd971113/boli01.htm Judgments - Regina v. Smith (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). [online]. Last accessed 16 May 2008 at: http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/WebCases/hol/reports/07/59.htm Medical Negligence. (2007). [online]. Maurice Blackburn, Lawyers. Last accessed 16 May 2008 at: http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/areas/medical/index.asp Mens rea. (2006). [online]. The K-Zone. Last accessed 16 May 2008 at: http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_MensRea.html R v. Miller (1983). (1994-2006). [online]. The K-Zone. Last accessed 16 May 2008 at: http://www.kevinboone.com/PF_lawglos_RVMiller1983.html Read More