Who Is Responsible for the Actions of the Weak-Minded, Hypnotized, or Paranoid - Case Study Example

Q1 A was sitting on a park bench. A was of a nervous disposition. A saw three youths walking towards him. One of the youths was swinging a bicycle chain in his hand. A was apprehensive that they were going to attack him. A stood up and started to walk away. The youths followed. A turned round and shouted : ‘one step further and I’ll defend myself’. The youths believed they were being threatened and one ran away. The second youth was unable to run because he had heart illness. His brother, the third youth, stayed with him. The second youth, who by now was feeling very unwell, stumbled forward and fell on A. A believed that he was being attacked and kicked the second youth inducing a heart attack. The third youth entered the melee to protect his brother and punched A in the face before a passer-by stopped the melee. The youths had not intended to attack A but had been walking through the park to retrieve a broken bicycle. Q2 Lukas, a 14 year old, was playing next to a main busy road. He threw stones at passing traffic. Sheila who was driving her car on the main road was struck by one of the stones causing the car to crash. Sheila suffered back and neck injuries. Lukas also threw another stone at Jack’s lorry as it drove past but the stone missed Jack and instead hit Andy’s van, smashing the windscreen and causing Andy facial scratches and several cuts to his hands. Lukas was arrested and during the police interview it appeared that Lukas was of low intelligence and had not realised the dangers of throwing stones Q3 T visited his hypnotherapist, M, for relief of severe pain. After treatment T was still under the influence of hypnosis though he gave no outward signs. Whilst driving home in his fast and sporty car, T ran down a law student. P who had run out in front of T’s car. Unaware of the accident, T parked his car and walked into his house nearby. T later went for a walk and met his old and good friend S, who called him a ‘thick fool’. T lost his temper and hit S over the head. S had a thin skull and died from the blow. QUESTION 4 (b) B decides to bake a cake for her sister, K’s graduation party. B puts nuts and other such ingredients along with a small dose of weed killer to have some fun at the party. K is allergic to nuts. K eats some of the cake and leaves the rest in the fridge for later. T, (K and B’s other sister) feeling peckish opens the fridge and finding the cake takes a large slice and eats it. Later both fall ill and are rushed to the hospital. The ambulance arrives at the hospital some 30 minutes late due to a punctured tyre, which had to be replaced. K and T both die. Advise B as to any criminal liability. Cite relevant cases and authorities. Q5 What is the purpose of a criminal code of conduct (criminal law) in any society Q6 Tariq, who was partially blind, took £750 from his boss’s till despite having been expressly told not to do so. Tariq intended to replace the money. Tariq then purchased some groceries out of the £750 from Jill’s Market stall. The total bill for the groceries came to £9. Tariq presented a £20 note to Jill saying, ‘this is a tenner. Don’t forget my change’ Jill gave Tariq £1 change back. Q1- fear of attack, self defence, existing illness, warning given Q1 In this particular situation it is necessary to determine what charges, if any, can be brought against A and the brother of the youth who suffered the heart attack. Under s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 an assault is deemed to have occurred if a person assaults another or commits a battery. Assault was defined in this Act as when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force1. The battery element of a s39 charge occurs when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another2. In the situation above, it could be argued that the actions of the 3 youths amounted to an assault, as A was fearful that he was going to be attacked by these youths. If the courts accept this assertion, A would be able to claim that he was acting in self defence when he attacked the second youth. In claiming self defence, if A can prove that he is of a nervous disposition, it is more likely that the court would accept the assertion that he really believed the youths were about to attack him. The claim of self defence would be further strengthened by using the fact that the second youth fell on him. Although this was not intentional, A had no way of knowing that this was accidental and as a result he might be able to convince the court that he believed the youth was attacking him. In relation to the punch delivered by the third youth, it could be argued that this amounts to an assault, however, the 3rd youth could argue that he was only acting in defence of his brother who had been kicked by A. This argument is strengthened by the fact that the 3rd youths brother was on the floor when A kicked him, and suffered a heart attack as a result of the kicking. When determining the level of charge the court will consider the degree of injury caused. In general grazes, scratches, abrasions and minor bruising will usually result in the offender being charged with a s39 assault. The level of punishment meted out for such an assault can be increased if the victim is considered to be vulnerable, either because of their age or any other disability that person might have. A s47 assault is likely to be charged if the victim has lost any teeth, or sensory functions, or consciousness as a result of the attack3. In order to assess whether such a charge should be brought the court will apply the recklessness test4. Under this test, the court has to be satisfied that the accused was aware of the possible effects of their actions but continued with those actions, regardless of the possible outcome. In R v Dawson (1985)5 the defendant’s were charged with manslaughter, when the attendant at the petrol station died from a heart attack, following the robbery carried out by the defendant’s. This was later overruled on the basis that the defendant’s had no way of knowing that the victim had a heart condition, and therefore they could not be liable for causing his death, as he appeared to be healthy. A similar conclusion was drawn in R v Carey & others [2006]6, despite the fact that the defendant’s had attacked the victim shortly before she suffered a heart attack and died. In this case, the court felt that it would be wrong to charge the defendant’s with manslaughter, as the victim appeared to be totally healthy, and in fact, medical evidence demonstrated that doctors were unaware that the victim had any problems with her heart. In Dulieu v White & Sons [1901]7 Kennedy J made the point that ‘if a man is....negligently injured in his body, it is not an answer to a sufferers claim for damages that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart.’ Applying this to the above, it could be argued that A should be charged with the resulting heart attack of his victim, regardless of the fact that he had no way of knowing that the youth had a heart complaint. In R. v Ogunbowale [2007]8 it was held that the defendant was not guilty of manslaughter as the victim did not doe as a direct result of the blow delivered by the defendant, but as a result of striking hi head on the ground when he fell. When determining what charges to bring against a defendant, the foreseeability test will be applied. This is based on what the reasonable man might have foreseen9. The reasonable man test can vary according to the characteristics of the defendant, therefore the metal capacity of the defendant is likely to be a determining factor10. In DPP v Daley and McGhie11 Lord Keith stated (5) that the defendant's 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. It is likely in the above, that A could face charges for assault on the 2nd youth, however, if he can prove that he was acting in self defence then charges against him will be dropped. Similarly, charges against the 3rd youth are likely to be dropped, as he was acting in defence of his brother who had been assaulted. Q2 In this case, it is necessary to consider what charges Lukas might face for throwing stones at the vehicles. Given that his actions led to damage being caused to Sheila, as well as her suffering injuries, it is likely that he would be charged with criminal damage and possibly assault. However, Lukas could rely on the case of DPP v Camplin [1978]12on the basis that he is of low intellect. In Camplin the defendant was originally charged with arson. Charges were subsequently dropped when it was discovered that the defendant was of low intellect, and did not appreciate that his actions might have caused a fire. If the court accept this argument then Lukas is unlikely to be charged with causing harm to Sheila or to Andy. If the court’s do not accept this argument, then he could face charges for criminal damage and causing injury to both Andy and Sheila, despite the fact that in the case of Andy, he was not the intended victim. In order to bring charges for the harm caused to Andy the court would consider the doctrine of transferred malice13. This was described by Lord Bingham in Edwards v R14 where he stated ‘there is a doctrine that is called 'Transferred Malice' and what it means, is if I pointed a gun at individual A with intention to kill or cause serious bodily injury to individual A and B is standing nearby and the bullet from that intentional act causes B to die, it misses and hits B, then the law says that the intention to kill or to cause serious bodily injury to A is transferred to B. And, if you found that the act, the intentional act of firing a gun at A with the necessary intent causes B to be killed, then the person who did that is guilty of the offence of murder.’ Lord Diplock affirmed this in R v Mowatt15 where he stated it is unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen16 that his unlawful act might cause some physical harm of the gravity described …It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person might result’. Applying this to the above, the court would be likely to find Lukas guilty of causing harm to Andy, if Lukas is unable to convince the court that he did not foresee the harm that might be caused as a result of his low intellect. Q3 In this case it is necessary to consider contributory negligence with regard to any injuries caused to the law student, as it states that he stepped out in front of the vehicle. With regard to the death of S it is necessary to consider the egg shell skull rule as well as the defence of provocation. It is also necessary to consider a possible defence of automatism based on the fact that the defendant was still partially under the influence of the hypnotherapy treatment at the time of driving the vehicle and assaulting S. In Ferguson v HM Advocate17 the defendant tried to assert contributory negligence on the basis that the officer had jumped onto the bonnet of the moving vehicle. This was dismissed by the court on the grounds that the officer was attempting to stop the defendant from escaping by jumping onto the bonnet, and was therefore performing his duty as an officer at the time of the incident. However, in the scenario above, it is likely that there would be a finding of contributory negligence, if T can prove that the student stepped out in front of the car. If the court do not accept this, T might still be able to avoid liability if he can prove that at the time of the accident he was under the influence of the hypnotherapy. Automatism was defined in the case of Bratty v Attorney General of Northern Ireland18 as "connoting the state of a person who, though capable of action, is not conscious of what he is doing ... It means unconscious involuntary action, and it is a defence because the mind does not go with what is being done." Lord Denning further commented that “No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context…means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking…” In Attorney-General's Reference (No 2 of 1992)19 the LCJ observed that '.....the defence of automatism requires that there was a total destruction of voluntary control on the defendant's part. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough.' If T can prove that he was still under the influence of hypnotherapy he could avoid charges for any injury caused to the law student. He could also rely on this to absolve him of liability for the death of S. If the court do not accept automatism as a defence, T couldrely on provocation as a defence20. Provocation is defined under s3 of the Homicide Act 1957 as Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or things said or both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury, and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which in their opinion it would have on a reasonable man. Provocation can be averred from things said by the victim prior to the attack that resulted in their death. The defence have the burden of proving that provocation has occurred21. The defendant has to show that as a direct result of the provocation they lose self control22. The defendant needs to show that a reasonable man would have acted in the same manner23. It was held in R v Davies24 that the conduct of the wife’s lover could be taken into consideration when determining whether the accused had been provoked into taking the actions that he did. Applying this to the above, T might be able to avoid liability for the murder of S either on the grounds of provocation or by using the defence of automatism. If T cannot prove this, the courts are likely to find him guilty of murder or manslaughter, regardless of the fact that T did not know that S had an extremely thin skull25. This test was applied in R v Blaue [1975]26 in which a Jehovah’s Witness died from the injuries inflicted upon her because she refused to have a blood transfusion. Q4 In this situation, B could be charged with causing the death of K and T despite the fact that it was not her intention to cause their deaths. The administering of the weedkiller into the cake is likely to lead to her being charged with murder as it should be obvious to the reasonable man that such an action could cause the death of another. The mens rea for murder was defined by Sir Edward Coke27 as being 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 King's 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 same28. In order to prove murder it has to be established whether there is direct intent 29 or oblique intent30. With direct intent the proof31 needed is that the accused desired the result that occurred32 whereas oblique intent applies when the accused did not desire the result that occurred but knew that their actions may cause the result that has happened. In the above, it could be argued that intent exists, as it is reasonably foreseeable that such harm would be caused by putting the weedkiller in the cake. With regard to the death of T, the court would use the doctrine of transferred malice to show that B ought to be charged with her death as well33. In her defence, B could argue that the chain of causation was broken by the ambulance breaking down on the way to the hospital. She could argue that if K and T had received treatment sooner, they might not have died. Some defendant’s have argued that the victim would not have died if it had not been for the actions of the doctor treating the victim34. In deciding whether the defendant or the doctor is responsible for the death the court will consider whether the chain of causation has been broken. In many cases the courts often conclude that the chain has not been broken despite the negligent treatment of the doctor. In general, the courts only allow such claims where the victim had recovered from the injuries inflicted by the defendant. This was the case in R v Cheshire [1991]35 where the court found that the victim was no longer in a life threatening condition when the negligent medical treatment was administered. It is unlikely that the court would accept the argument that the chain of causation was broken by the ambulance breaking down unless there is significant proof that earlier treatment would have prevented their deaths. Q5 The purpose of criminal law is to set boundaries by which all must live. The aim of punishment is to prevent bad conduct, and to enforce moral standards. Without criminal law, and the threat of punishment for those who fail to abide by the law, society would be unruly, and the safety of all persons would be in jeopardy. Historically punishment for crimes has always been practised. In determining whether punishment should be meted out the government considers the need for retribution, the use of punishment as a deterrent, the rehabilitation of the offender, restitution for the victim of the crime and the incapacitation of the offender to prevent further offending. Retribution is seen as important, as the victim and society need to know that the offender has been punished for the crime. The threat of punishment is viewed as a deterrent, with the belief that offenders will stop committing crimes to avoid the punishment attached to that crime. In some cases, punishment is used to rehabilitate offenders so that they can return to society and contribute to society in a positive manner. This is evident in the use of community service penalties. The use of restitution is designed to show the offender that they have to make amends to their victim. This is particularly applied in cases where money has been embezzled by the offender, or the offender has caused damage to the property of another, and is ordered to pay compensation to the victim. Incarceration is used as a deterrent, as well as a visible sign to society and the victims of crime, that offending behaviour will not be tolerated. The seriousness of the crime will often determine the length of the prison sentence imposed, although this is not always the case. Q6 In this case, Tariq is likely to be charged with theft, even though he intended to repay the money back to his employer. Under s1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 a theft occurs where a person “dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.” In the case above, it could be argued that Tariq did not intend to permanently deprive his employer of the money. However, he did take the money from the till after being told explicitly that he was not entitled to do this. In R v Roberts [1999]36 a serving police officer was convicted of theft after taking a watch that had been placed in the property store at the police station. The officer was charged for a breach of trust as defined by s2 1 of the Theft Act 1968. However, in the case of Tariq the court would need to be satisfied that he intended to permanently deprive his employer of the money in order to find him guilty of this offence. The court will consider mitigating circumstances in such cases, as was the case in R v James [2000]37 in which the defendant had taken the money because she was in debt and being threatened by bailiffs. In the case of Jill, the court will have to determine whether she deliberately him change for a ten pound note instead of a twenty, or whether she had made an honest mistake. In Lawrence v MPC [1972]38 a taxi driver overcharged a foreign student for the taxi fare which should have An Italian student took a taxi ride for which the proper fare was been 50p. The driver argued that there was no theft as the victim had willingly given him £5. The court found the driver guilty of obtaining property by deception under s15 of the Theft Act. Using this in the case above, Jill could be similarly charged, especially since her victim would be considered as vulnerable due to him being blind. 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 Elliott, C & Quinn, F, Criminal Law, 3rd Ed, 2000, Pearson Education Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd ed 1983), London: Stevens & Sons Herring, J, Criminal Law, 4th Ed, 2005, Palgrave Macmillan Law Masters Law Commission, ‘Partial Defences to Murder’, Law Com No 290, Cm 6301 (2004), TSO, London Mackay & Mitchell, ‘But is this Provocation? Some Thoughts on the Law Commission’s Report on Partial Defences to Murder’, [2005] Crim LR 44 Murphy, P, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice, 2002, Oxford University Press Reuber, M & Mackay, D, Epileptic automatisms in the criminal courts: 13 cases tried in England and Wales between 1975 and 2001, Epilepsia, 49(1): 138- 145, 2008 Smith. J C, The presumption of innocence (1987) NILQ 223 Read More