Criminal Law: Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter - Case Study Example

Question There are two possible changes that can be filed against Alf in this case ly, murder and involuntary manslaughter. a. Murder Since the act of Alf of burning the house and then throwing Vera from the window presumably to save her was the direct cause of her death, Alf has the potential liability for murder in this case. The elements of the crime are present in this case, namely (a) the intent to commit an unlawful act (b) the commission of the act and (c) death resulting from the unlawful act. Section 8 Criminal Justice Act 1967, said that the framework in assessing the existence of mens rea shall include the fact that the accused was able to foresee the possible consequences of his or her actions. Although the direct intent of Alf in this case is merely to frighten Pete, under the law, he is deemed to have an oblique intent since he was able to foresee the result of his act. Note that the facts of this case said that Alf “thinks it possible that someone will be injured”. This is effect made him liable for the consequences of his action even if these consequences are not his main objectives. According to the court in the case of R v Mohan1, the accused can be held liable for the consequences of his action even if these consequences are not what he desired to happen. Aside from the presence of an oblique intent which made Alf liable, the chain of events or the causation that lead to the death of the victim can be directly attributed to Alf. Note that if Alf did not start the fire, Vera would not have been trapped inside the house without any means of escape. According to the decision of the court in the case of R v Smith (Thomas Joseph)2, unless the chain of causation is effectively broken by acts of third parties, the person who initiated the chain of events shall be held liable for murder. In our case, the chain of causation was not broken in any way, thus, the death of Vera becomes a direct consequence of the act of Alf in burning the house. To defend him self in court, Alf can site the fact that there was already a break in the causation since the firefighters who were supposed to save the child forgot to bring ladders. Presumably, if the firefighters had ladders, they would have been able to bring the child to safety and Alf would not have to face the moral dilemma of what to do to save the life of the child. Aside from using the break in causation as a defense, Alf can also use the defense presented in R v Creamer3 to reduce his liability from murder to involuntary manslaughter or constructive manslaughter. According to the court in this case, a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if he does an unlawful act which likely to cause harm to a person, and unintended or unforeseen death resulted from the act. Since Alf did not intend to kill Vera, his responsibility for the death of the child is constructed from his act of burning the house of Pete. b. Involuntary Manslaughter Another possible case against Alf is involuntary manslaughter. The elements of the crime of involuntary manslaughter or constructive manslaughter are as follows: (a) existence of an unlawful act, (b) the unlawful act must be objectively dangerous, and (c) the unlawful act must be the proximate cause of the death victim (see R v Creamer4; R v Adomako5. In our case, Alf’s act of burning the house of Pete constituted a criminal offense in itself which satisfies the proof of mens rea. Although Alf did not have the intention to harm Vera, he did foresee that his act of burning the house would result to some harm. Moreover, when he was trying to save Vera, he knew that if he threw her out of the window and into the arms of the crowd, she has but minimal chances of survival. Clearly, Alf was able to foresee the consequences of his actions. As it is, it does not matter if he did not have the intention to harm Vera, the fact that he was able to foresee the harmful consequences of his actions make him liable for involuntary manslaughter. The case of Alf is analogous with the case of R v Miller6. Note that in the case of Miller, the accused set fire on the mattress that he was using did not bother to try to do anything to stop the fire when he had the chance to. According to the court, although the accused did not posses a guilty mind when he set the mattress on fire, he can still be held liable for the damages that his action caused. In the case of Alf, he purposely set the house on fire but had a change of heart when he heard the cries of Vera and tried to save the child. Unfortunately, despite his efforts, the child still died. Since the acts of Alf was not directly intended to harm Vera, his liability towards her in constructive, thus, he should only be held liable for involuntary or constructive manslaughter. Of the two possible cases that can be filed against Alf in relation to the death of Vera, the case of involuntary manslaughter is more likely to progress since there was no criminal intent on the part of Alf to harm Vera. According to Humphreys J in case of Rex v Larkin7, a person is guilty of manslaughter if his unlawful and dangerous act resulted to the unintentional death of another person. Question 2: In the case at bar, Jo cannot be held criminally liable for the incident even if she heard Vera calling for help. According to Lord Diplock in the case of R v Miller8, despite the fact that failure to help a person who is need is deplorable, English law does not consider this act as crime. There is no law in England that put legal obligations on an innocent bystander to help a person who is in need. Moreover, our English law is very particular when it comes to upholding the individual rights of people thus, if a person who is not legally bound to act does not do anything to save another who is in danger, he or she cannot held liable for any crime. The fact that Jo is a neighbour and family friend of Pete does not give rise to any legal duty of care between them. According to the court in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson9, a duty of care must exist before a person can be held liable for negligence. In our case, Jo has no legal obligation towards Vera or Pete. According to the law, the duty of care exists only when there is a proximate relationship between the parties. Proximate relationship in this case can be through contract (see R v Pittwood10), close family relationships (see R v Smith11) or an implied assumption of the duty of care through overt actions (see R v Stone12). Since there were no contractual relationships between Pete and Jo nor are there any blood relations between them and Jo had not assumed any responsibility towards Vera or Pete, there can be no enforceable duty of care between them. Besides, as stated by the court in the case of R v Stone13, even if victim and the defendant are related by blood, there can no duty of care between them unless the defendant voluntarily assumed that duty of care through words or actions. In the case of R v Smith14, the court also made it clear that even separated couples do not have any legally duty of care in relation to each other unless this duty of care has been voluntarily assumed by them. Given all these facts, Jo has no criminal liability in relation to the event. Question 3: In our case, Olly can be held liable for the death of Vera. As a public officer who is duty bound to save lives, Olly may be held liable for his negligence in the performance of his duty. According to the court in the case of R v Sheppard15, a public officer who did not foresee the consequences of his or her actions cannot escape liability by using his indifference as a defence. As stated by the court in the case of R v Wyat16, an officer who neglects a duty that is incumbent upon him or her, by virtue of his or office or by common law, can be held liable for the consequences of his or her neglect. According to the case of R v Bateman17, gross negligence manslaughter occur when there is a breach in the duty of care due to negligence and such breach caused the death of the victim. In our case, Olly, the fireman is duty bound to bring the tools that he needs to fight fire and rescue people who are in danger. The fact that Olly and his crew forgot to bring any ladders to the scene constitute negligence which directly contributed to the cause of death of the victim. Note that if Olly and his screw had the ladder, they could have climbed up to the window and bring the child down to safety. Since the negligence of Olly in performing his duty can be directly linked to the death of the child in this case, he can be indicted for involuntary manslaughter through gross negligence of duty. Bibliography Books 1. Ashworth. A, (1989) ‘The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions’ Law Quarterly Review 105 2. Criminal Justice Act 1967 3. Lacey. (1993) A Clear Concept of Intention: Elusive or Illusory, 56 MLR 621. 4. Williams, Glanville (1987) Oblique Intention, Cambridge Law Journal 417 Table of Cases 1. Donoghue v Stevenson 1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562 2. R v Adomako [1994] UKHL 6 (30 June 1994); [1995] 1 AC 171 3. R v Bateman (1925) Cr App R 8 4. R v Creamer 1966 1 QB 72 5. R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 6. R v Mohan (1975) 2 All ER 193 7. R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37 8. R v Sheppard [1981] AC 394 9. R v Smith (Thomas Joseph) [1959] 2 QB 35, [1959] AC 10. R v Wyat18 (1705) 1 Salk 380 11. Rex v Larkin (1942) 29 Cr.App.R.18 Read More