Killers against Their Will - Execute Cannot Be Pardoned - Case Study Example

First, we need to look at Cheryl’s actions.  She made a derogatory remark about Adam’s face, which caused him to fly into a rage.  This would be a third person provocation, and it is possible for a third person to cause the provocation.  R v. Davies (1975) 1 QB 691.  However, the provocation must occur at the time of the act.  R v. Ibrams (1981) 74 Cr. Appl. R. 154.  Therefore, Cheryl’s actions are irrelevant in this case. Did Barry properly provoke?

  We can look at a reasonable man with the same characteristics as D.  R v. Camplin (1978) 1 QB 261.  We have to look at the reasonable man in Adam’s situation - which would mean a reasonable man with a disfigured face who grew up hearing insulting names, who also was in pain and depressed. Barry called him an elephant man, which would probably enrage the reasonable man with the same characteristics as Adam because it would touch on the sensitivities that he had growing up.

  However, the reasonable man must have “reasonable self-control,” R v. Lesbini (1914) 3 KB 116, so the fact that Adam was short-tempered and irritable would be somewhat irrelevant.  Would the reasonable man with reasonable self-control act as Adam did in this situation?  Maybe.  That would be for a jury to decide. Now, Barry was a hemophiliac, so was this an intervening cause?  The thin skull rule says that you take the victim as they are, so underlying medical issues do not break the chain of causation.

  R v. Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271.  Therefore, no intervening cause of death was present.  You also have to look at the but-for test - but for Adam beating up Barry, Barry would not have died.  The actions of Adam after he beat up Barry also definitely caused Barry’s death, as he apparently left Barry as Barry was bleeding profusely.  If Adam would have taken Barry to the hospital promptly, Barry probably would not have died.  This is an omission and can make Adam criminally liable, as he caused the danger.

  R v. Miller (1983) 2 AC 161.  Barry will probably be found guilty of manslaughter.  He intended to cause great bodily harm, which would satisfy the elements of murder, but it was mitigated by provocation.