The Presumption of Innocence in English Law - Case Study Example

Arnold was a member of an anti-capitalist organisation committed to the violent overthrow of society. He made a telephone call to a police station in which he threatened to release a toxic gas into the underground rail system of a city within thirty minutes. Twenty minutes later he released a poisonous gas at a busy station. The authorities closed the system down but in the confusion Bill, a police officer, was killed by inhaling the gas and Carl, a passenger, was injured. An ambulance worker, Dan, attempted to assist Carl but ran away from the scene when it was time to go off duty. Carl was eventually taken to hospital but he refused a potentially life-saving blood transfusion. Within hours he experienced extreme breathing difficulties and to cut short his agony he took out his penknife and slit his throat. He died within seconds. Arnold had recently been diagnosed, but not treated, with severe depression. Discuss whether any offences have been committed by Arnold or Dan. In order to determine what offences might have been committed it is necessary to examine each of the acts separately. Several issues need addressing including the mens rea and actus reus for each offence. There also needs to be a discussion about the chain of causation and the effects of a break in that. The starting point is to consider the actions of Arnold. It could be argued that he is responsible for both deaths as neither would have been killed if he had not released the poisonous gas. The first thing to consider in respect of Arnold is whether his actions amount to murder or whether manslaughter would be more appropriate. In considering murder it is necessary to examine the mens rea required for such a charge. The mens rea is the fault element of the offence. The mens rea for murder was first defined by Sir Edward Coke in Coke’s Institutes1 where he stated that intention for murder can be inferred When a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Kings Peace, with malice aforethought, so as the party wounded, or hurt…, die of the wound or hurt, … within a year and a day after the same. Prior to the recent changes in legislation malice aforethought was a requisite element in order to establish the mens rea2. Legislative changes and case law3 have resulted in modifying the requirement of malice aforethought4 such that the prosecution now only has a duty to prove an intention to kill5 or to cause serious bodily harm6. Intention is a subjective test reliant on what the jury considers the defendant would have foreseen as a consequence of his actions. There is no consideration of what the defendant should have foreseen7. Intention can be oblique or direct. Oblique intention occurs when the accused did not desire the outcome but was aware that the person might be killed8. By contrast direct intention occurs where the defendant wants to actually kill the victim. Foresight of the end result is often used as evidence to support the assertion that the accused intended to kill their victim9. In the above it could be argued that Arnold did not intend to kill anyone. This could be evidenced by proving his lack of intention, demonstrated by the fact that he made the call, thereby allowing sufficient time for the station to be evacuated. In such a case it might be appropriate for the killings to be regarded as manslaughter10. Manslaughter is usually averred for oblique intent. Similarly defences to manslaughter can have the effect of reducing the charge to manslaughter. Defences usually pleaded in these cases include provocation11 or diminished responsibility12. In this particular case none of the defences would be applicable since Arnold could not argue that he had been provoked or that he was suffering from diminished responsibility as he had called the police before carrying out his actions. Arnold could attempt to argue that his phone call to the police was intended to prevent anyone getting killed by warning them of his intention. In relying on diminished responsibility Arnold would have to satisfy the requirements of s2 of the Homicide Act 1957 which states Where a person kills or is party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. Arnold would have to prove that a reasonable man would consider the state of mind of the accused to be abnormal13. Such defences have been employed where the defendant is suffering from severe shock or depression14. Where these abnormalities are caused by drugs or drink the courts will not usually entertain a plea of diminished responsibility. In the situation above it is unlikely that the courts would accept this as a plea since Arnold is a member of a group whose intention it is to cause the overthrow of society through violence. With regard to the death of Bill it is likely that the courts would find Arnold guilty of his murder since they are likely to be convinced that Arnold ought to have foreseen that someone was likely to get killed or seriously injured. The situation might be slightly different in relation to Carl since he was only injured and the inaction of Dan led to Carl suffering a greater degree of pain, as a result of which Carl killed himself. It could be argued that slitting his own throat should absolve the others of liability; however, there is nothing to suggest that Carl intended to harm himself before he had been injured. In this case it is necessary to discuss the chain of causation and determine whether any of the supervening events could lead to the conclusion that the chain of causation had been broken. The chain of causation can be deemed to be broken by a number of factors. Actions of a third party15 or of the victim16 have on occasion broken the chain of causation. Wrong medical treatment has also been deemed as causing the chain to have been broken17. It could be argued that Carl would not have killed himself if Dan had given him the necessary treatment. Case law assists in defining when the chain is deemed to have been broken. In Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008]18 the court held that the chain had been broken by the deceased’s actions. In Corr the deceased had been employed by the respondent and had suffered a disfiguring injury following an accident at work. As a result of the injury the deceased committed suicide and his widow brought an action against them for failing to address his depression. The court stated that the foreseeability that he would commit suicide was remote and that the act should rightly be regarded as a novus actus inteveniens. In R. v Ogunbowale [2007]19 the jury reached the conclusion that the defendant did not die from the blow delivered by the accused and that death was caused when the victim fell to the ground after the attack and bashed his head. Arnold could rely on the defence that the chain of causation had been broken to show he was not directly responsible for Carl’s death. Arnold could argue that Carl would have survived if he had been given the appropriate treatment. It could be argued that Arnold ought to have foreseen how dangerous his actions were and that releasing the chemical could cause serious harm or injury20 to someone or cause the death of any such victim21. The prosecution would not have to prove that the harm was intended but that he was reckless22 as to what might happen23. The prosecution would have to show that this was a continuous act24 and that the chain of causation25 had not been broken26. Foreseeability is based on what the reasonable man might have foreseen27. The definition of a reasonable man can fluctuate according to the characteristics of the accused28. In DPP v Daley and McGhie29 Lord Keith stated (5) that the defendants conduct which caused the fear was unlawful; and (6) that his conduct was such as any sober and reasonable person would recognise as likely to subject the victim to at least the risk of some harm resulting from it, albeit not serious harm. Arnold could argue that the chain was broken by the Dan failing to assist Carl. Case law does little to assist as there have been several cases where the victim might have survived their injuries inflicted but the actions of the doctors has caused their death30. In these cases where the court is satisfied that the chain has not been broken despite the negligent medical treatment the defendant has been found guilty. Arnold could rely on R v Cheshire [1991]31 if he could prove that the chain had been broken. In this case the jury held that of the negligent treatment of the medical staff caused the death. In R v Cheshire the defendant was acquitted but only because at the time of the negligent treatment the injuries caused by the defendant had already started to heal and was no longer life threatening. When looking at whether Arnold could avoid liability by arguing that the Dan should have offered assistance it is necessary to examine the duty of those who come upon a scene with regards to the offering of assistance32. Under UK law there is no legal obligation on an individual to assist a person in need of treatment unless that person was the cause of the injuries. There is also no legal liability for an omission to act where the person concerned is not responsible for the injuries of the victim. There are certain relationships within the UK where a positive duty to act might arise. The law recognises parents33 or teachers as falling within the category of those that have a duty to protect as they are responsible for the children in their care. Liability is also placed on members of the medical profession who are caring for patients within the hospital34. Where a person is injured in the street doctors and nurses have no legal obligation to assist that person unless they were directly responsible for that person’s injuries. Police officers also have a duty to assist but this only applies when they are acting in performance of their duties and does not place liability on them when they are off duty. If Arnold could prove that Carl would have survived the incident if it had not been for the actions of Dan then he would be likely to avoid charges for the death of Carl. Dan could argue that he is not directly responsible for the death of Carl as Carl used a knife to kill himself because the pain was so bad. By considering the suicide of Carl35 all the other parties could be absolved of liability for his death. To be able to decide whether the courts might find that the suicide of Carl negates all other liabilities it is necessary to examine cases where the victims have taken their own lives as a direct result of an injury against them36. In R v Anderson37 the victim of a rape found the humiliation too much to bear and ended her own life. The defendant was held liable for the suicide of the victim as the court held there was a causal link between the rape and the victim’s suicide. The family of the Carl might attempt to prove that the hospital staff was negligent in leaving the scalpel in reach. To be able to prove this they would have to prove that the staff ought to have realised that he might do something like this38. As Carl had shown no suicidal tendencies during his treatment the hospital may well be able to avoid any liability for his death. The relatives could bring an action against the Dan on the principle that failing to assist Carl led to his pain and suffering causing him to end his life to stop the pain. It can be concluded from the above that Arnold is likely to be charged with the murder of Bill and could also face similar charges for Carl’s death if the chain of causation is deemed not to be broken. Dan could face charges for failing to help Carl; however, there is no legal requirement on the part of Dan to offer such treatment when the patient is not within the confines of a hospital. The subsequent suicide of Carl could have the effect of nullifying the liability of all parties, unless the courts are satisfied that there had been no break in the chain of causation. Bibliography Allen, C, Practical Guide to Evidence, 2nd Ed, 2001, Cavendish Publishing Ashworth, A and Blake, M The presumption of innocence in English law [1996] Crim LR 306 Cook, K, James, M, and Lee, R, Core Statutes on Criminal Law, 2006-2007, Law Matters Publishing Elliott, C & Quinn, F, Criminal Law, 3rd Ed, 2000, Pearson Education Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd Ed, 1983, London: Stevens & Sons Glazebrook, P R, Statutes on Criminal Law, 10th Ed, 2001, Blackstone Press Limited Herring, J, Criminal Law, 4th Ed, 2005, Palgrave Macmillan Law Masters Huxley, P, & O’Connell, M, Statutes on Evidence, 5th Ed, Blackstone’s Inns of Court School of Law, Criminal Litigation & Sentencing, 2003, Oxford University Press Legislating the Criminal Code: Corruption, Law Commission Report 145 (1997) Murphy, P, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice, 2002, Oxford University Press Smith, J.C. and Hogan, B, Criminal Law, 7th Ed, 2002, London: Butterworths Smith & Hogan, Criminal Law, 2005 11th Ed, Oxford University Press Smith. J C, The presumption of innocence (1987) NILQ 223 Tadros, V and Tierney, S [2004] Presumption of innocence and the Human Rights Act 67 MLR 402  Table of Cases Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 Q.B. 428 [1968] 2 W.L.R. 422 [1968] 1 All E.R. 1068 (1967) 111 S.J. 912 Coke’s Institutes, 3 Co Inst 47 Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13; Times, February 28, 2008 DPP V Camplin [1978] AC 705; [1978] 2 All ER 168 DPP v Daley and McGhie [1980]2 WLR 239 DPP v Santa-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (2004) 168 J.P. 373 (2004) 168 J.P.N. 536 DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 Fagon v MPC [1961] 1 QB 439 Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55; [1974] 2 WLR 607; [1974] 2 All ER 41 Kent v Griffiths (No.3) [2001] Q.B. 36 [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1158 [2000] 2 All E.R. 474 [2000] P.I.Q.R. P57 [2000] Lloyds Rep. Med. 109 (2000) 97(7) L.S.G. 41 (2000) 150 N.L.J. 195 (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 106 Times, February 10, 2000 Independent, February 9, 2000 Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell [1982] AC 341 Pretty v United Kingdom (2346/02) [2002] 2 F.L.R. 45; R. v Anderson [2005] EWCA Crim 3523; R. v Al-Khawaja (Imad) [2005] EWCA Crim 2697 [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1078 [2006] 1 All E.R. 543 [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 9 Times, November 15, 2005 Independent, November 9, 2005 R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr. App. R. 95 R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670, CA 40 R v Coutts [2005] EWCA Crim 52 R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396; R v Miller [1982] 2 All ER 386 R v Dhaliwal [2006] Crim LR 923 R v Duffy (1949) 1 AER 932 R v Gilmour [200] Crim LR 763 R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455 R v Hobson [1997] Crim LR 759 R v Jakeman (1982) 76 Cr App R 223 R v Janjua and Choudury [1998] Crim LR 675 R v Jordan, 1956 40 Cr App R 152 CA. R v Malcherek and Steel [1981] 1 WLR 690 R v Miller [1982] 2 All ER 386 R v Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025 R v Nedrick (1986) 83 Cr App 267 R v Pagett (1983) 76 Crim App Rep 279 R v Raven (1982) Crim. LR 51 R v Scalley [1995] Crim LR 504. R v Smith [1959] 1 QB 35 R v Tandy (1988) 87 Cr App R 45 R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr App R 226 R v White [1910] 2 KB 124 R v Woollin [1997] 1 Cr App R 97; [1997] Crim LR 519; The Times, August 12 1996,CA R. (on the application of Corner) v Southend Crown Court [2005] EWHC 2334 (2006) 170 J.P. 6 (2006) 170 J.P.N. 34 R. v HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe Ex p. Jamieson [1995] Q.B. 1 [1994] 3 W.L.R. 82 [1994] 3 All E.R. 972 (1994) 158 J.P. 1011 [1994] 5 Med. L.R. 217 [1994] C.O.D. 455 Times, April 28, 1994 Independent, April 27, 1994 R. v Lowe (Robert) [1973] Q.B. 702 [1973] 2 W.L.R. 481 [1973] 1 All E.R. 805 (1973) 57 Cr. App. R. 365 (1973) 117 S.J. 144 R. v Ogunbowale [2007] EWCA Crim 273 Stone v Dobinson [1977] QB 354 Walsh v Gwynedd HA [1998] C.L.Y. 397 Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] Q.B. 1134 [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1256 [2001] P.I.Q.R. P16 (2001) 98(12) L.S.G. 44 (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 31 Times, February 2, 2001 Independent, January 11, 2001 Daily Telegraph, January 16, 2001 Table of Statutes Criminal Justice Act 2003 Homicide Act 1957 Read More