Principles of Criminal Law - Case Study Example

Principles of Criminal law Discuss the criminal liability of Susan Introduction: Susan had stolen a DVD from the stores and while leaving with the stolen goods under her jacket, she was caught by a store detective. Under normal circumstances, this is a criminal act, but in this case, the possible extenuating circumstances may be in terms of the fact that she was intimidated by Gina with threats of Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) if she refused to comply. The aspects of committing a crime involuntarily, under pressure and threats from some body, and under duress do arise in this case. The criminal liability which may accrue to Susan is discussed here. Issues: 1. The main issue is the aspect of duress exercised by Gina over Susan in order to get the DVD. 2. The second aspect is that whether there is sufficient mens rea (guilty mind) on the part of Susan to commit the crime. 3. Susan’s act of trying to carry the stolen goods under her jacket. 4. The aftermath of the crime, should Gina state that she had nothing to do with the crime committed by Susan even though she is a main instigator and accessory to the crime? It is now proposed to discuss the rules regarding criminal liability under duress, which is the main aspect in this case. Rules: It is first necessary to speak about the main aspects of duress that underline this case. Duress has been defined as “Restraint or danger, actually inflicted or impending, which is sufficient in severity or apprehension to deprive a person of free choice, destroy his volition, or obtain consent only in form.” 1 In this case, it is seen that Gina had obtained Susan’s actions under duress of GBH, and perhaps Susan would not have agreed to the crime had she not been put under duress of bodily harm. However, it is necessary for the State to prove that duress did not exist, or if it existed, it was not enough for Susan to steal the goods from the store. The second aspect would be the English contract act, which states that any contract entered through exercise of duress is void. In the case of Barton v. Armstrong [1975] 2 AER 465, A, the former chairman of a company threatened to kill B, its managing director, if B did not buy A’s shares. The Privy Council held that if As threats were "a" reason for Bs executing the deed he was entitled to relief even though he might well have entered into the contract if A had uttered no threats to induce him to do so. The onus was on A to prove that the threats he made contributed nothing to Bs decision to sign. 2 The next aspect would be in terms of the fact that in order to be valid, there is need for both actus rea (guilty actions) and mens rea (guilty mind). A person who assaults another has the will and power to commit an assault, and his mind is also bent towards committing the offence. Both actus rea and mens rea need to be present during commission of offences. In this case, it could be said that while actus rea is present when Susan steals the DVD, the mens rea is not present, since she did not voluntarily have the will or intention to commit the theft. Again, the aspect of voluntariness must be present. It is not only necessary that the alleged offender behaves in a particular way, but is also imperative that she has a particular state of mind for the commission of the crime. In this case it is seen that Susan’s conduct during the commission of crime was involuntary and the issue of causation viz. intention to commit the theft voluntarily did not match with the result of the crime, viz. actual stealing of the goods and putting it under her jacket. However, it may be argued that the mens rea did not occur when she lifted the goods from the shelf, but it did occur when she tried to hide the stolen goods under her jacket. The very act of her placing the goods under her jacket and making a getaway does establish guilt and mens rea to a large extent. It also belies her apparent low intelligence quotient (IQ) and disposition of weak nerves. Application: The Courts have laid down the Two stage Test for deciding the validity of duress or not as seen in the R.V. Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294 case. 3 In this case, it is seen R, a homosexual partner of a married person G, while both were in alcoholic state, apparently used duress to secure G’s help to kill G’s wife. The husband pleaded that he had acted under duress from R. The Two Stage Test was applied as follows: 1. Was the defendant actually in such a state of life threat which he believed himself to be, or in this case, would it be that R would have harmed G if he did not comply with his order. 2. Whether anybody else, with ordinary prudence and judgement as of G, would have acted in a similar manner as G had. 4 In the case of R.V. Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294 the Court did not consider that the inebriated state in which the defendants were, had any bearing on the case, and the fact of intoxication may be considered in a separate defence plea without being linked with this one. Applying this in Susan’s case, it could be said that the facts would be if the Court considers whether there was a genuine threat to Susan, or whether Gina would have caused GBH to Susan if she had not complied with her demands of stealing the DVD from the store. The next test is whether any other person of reasonable prudence, in a similar position as Susan, would have reacted in a similar manner as Susan did. Obviously, it would be difficult to answer both these queries in either affirmative or negative, since there are lot of factors that come into play, especially the fact whether a person with similar low IQ and weak nervous disposition would have deterred from committing the theft. However, some light can be thrown from the case of R. v. Bowen (1996) Crim.LR 577. In this case the Court of Appeal held that a lower IQ, short of mental impairment or mental defectiveness was not a germane trait, since it did not make those who had it have a lower degree of pluck and tenacity to endure intimidation and threats than an ordinary person. 5 In other words, the Court would be convinced that a person with lower intelligence does not possess the necessary traits to overcome a situation that Susan had encountered in the sense of being bullied into stealing goods from a shop. Another aspect in this case would be in terms of the fact whether the decision to hide the goods inside her jacket to escape detection was Susan’s idea or Gina’s. In all probability, upon being caught, Gina would deny responsibility and put the entire blame on her friend Susan, and the latter would be short of evidence to prove her innocence. The main aspect that needs to be understood is that while there may not have been mens rea while taking the goods from the stand, mens rea could be established from the time she hid the goods under her jacket and proceeded to go out of the store. It is seen that the Courts would take duress into account only if the threat is directly connected with the commission of the offence. This is the reason while duress could not be established in the case of R v Coles [1994] Crim LR 582, wherein the defendant pleaded that he stole money in building societies, to pay off his moneylenders under whom he was in duress. The Courts held that in paying off dues to money lenders, the objective of duress was not an offence and was independent of his criminal ways. 6 Court decision in R v. Bowens (1996) Another aspect that is concerned with duress is the fact that Courts only believed that age and sex are relevant in matters of duress. If a person is of tender age and impressionable, it is possible that he/she may be coerced into doing something wrong; similarly a younger woman or a pregnant woman may be more vulnerable in terms of duress than older ones. However, it is also possible that women may have more moral courage and resistance to threats than others, and so to link lower IQ and weaker nerves to unexplained duress may not be always possible if one were to keep R. v. Bowen decision in mind. 7 However, it is also possible that the Courts may or may not take cognizance of the R v. Bowens (1996) decision while deciding this case, and moreover this case falls short in importance being just shoplifting which may be treated as an offence under relevant laws. Conclusions: This case has certain interesting ramifications. For one thing, in order to establish guilt on Susan, it would be necessary for prosecution to prove that she had acted voluntarily and the duress that her lawyers may claim is independent of the offence she committed, or in other words, she would have committed the offence of stealing, even if duress was not present. As it stands she could be held responsible for stealing under the provisions of Theft Act. However, it is seen from the R. v. Bowen decision that the plea of low IQ and weak disposition may not be tenable since Courts may not consider it as having a direct bearing, since this could prejudice the entire proceedings. In all fairness to Susan, this aspect may be treated as a separate appeal and heard, which may or may not have a bearing on the actual case. Moreover, Gina’s role is also important in Susan’s court proceedings, and the law enforcement authorities may be in a position to find out the real facts thereby exculpating Susan and indicting Gina in this case. There are no clear-cut right or wrong answers and a lot in this case would depend upon the deliberations of the respective lawyers – from the prosecution’s side and the defendants’ side. Moreover, if Susan’s attorneys are able to establish a direct linkage between the issue of causation, or Gina’s threats of GBH and the final result of stealing, unlike in the R v. Coles case where the defence could not establish the threat-stealing nexus, she stands a good chance of being acquitted and the real culprit, Gina indicted in this case. References Duress by threats 2009, Law Teacher: The Law Essay Professionals, viewed 13 July 2009, http://www.lawteacher.net/Duress%201.php Duress law cases 2009, Law Teacher: The Law Essay Professionals, viewed 13 July 2009, http://www.lawteacher.net/Duress%20Cases.php#1 Molan, M T 2005, Cases & materials on criminal law 3/e, Routledge Cavendish, viewed 13 July 2009, http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZxuXSPlxM8gC&pg=PR20&lpg=PR20&dq=R+v+Coles+%5B1994%5D+Crim+LR+582,&source=bl&ots=_io0l_mLIy&sig=a_cB3sXlery_caRYXYS93oWXXxc&hl=en&ei=QbFZSqjcOtGfkQW3ra3UBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 The ‘lectric law library’s lexicon on duress n.d., Lectric Law Library, viewed 13 July 2009, http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d082.htm Read More