If a Person Is Guilty of Several Crimes, What Punishment Will He Incur - Case Study Example

Case Summary: John, married, and devastated after learning he was infertile, has been seeing a psychiatrist. He had also been drinking the past few months. After office, he went drinking alcohol again and on his way home, saw a couple, with the women heavily pregnant. John approached the couple whom he was not familiar with and began talking to the wife. The husband Neil objected to the stranger’s way of communicating. John explained his problem and Neil taunted him. After explaining his difficult situation, John walked away but turned back and shouted at Neil, “You are out of order, inconsiderate and should shut your mouth.” He walked back towards the couple and pushed Neil, crying, “Did you hear me? Shut your mouth!” Neil fell to the ground and John kicked him in the head yelling, “Shut up!” The wife Annabelle screamed at John to stop, picked some stones and threw them at John, with some hitting John at the back of his head. He pushed Annabelle on to a stationary car although Annabelle tried to fight back to stop John. John stabbed Annabelle with a bunch of keys in the stomach. John ran off and the couple were taken to the hospital by an ambulance. Neil was recovering when he contacted MRSA ad died. Annabelle gave birth to a stillborn infant, refused treatment and died of internal bleeding. This paper will proceed to discuss the criminal implication of John’s actions on the couple. Discussion: Assault is an initial violation that can be charged against John. Under the 14th Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee (1980) (Cmnd 7844) paragraph158 and adopted by the Law Commission in their Consultation Paper No. 122 (1992) paragraph 9.1, “assault” was defined as: “…an act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence and a battery is an act by which a person intentionally or recklessly inflicts personal violence upon another. However, the term ' assault ', is now, in both ordinary legal usage and in statutes, regularly used to cover both assault and battery.” In the case of John against the couple, the case of Rex v. Donovan [1934] comes to mind with the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal as follows: “. . . ‘bodily harm’ has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the prosecutor. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must, no doubt, be more than merely transient and trifling,” (p 509). In addition, the amended Act of 1861 section 20 states: “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of [an offence], . . . and shall be liable ... [to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment].” However, being in a depressed situation and under psychiatric care, John’s defence may resort to “insanity” or “mental disorder.” Mental disorder has been defined under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 in Number 11 to include mental illness, mental disability, dementia, or any disease of the mind but does not include intoxication. The clause “but does not include intoxication” complicates the case of John as he was drunk at that time. In the case of DPP v Majewski [1976], it has been decided by the judge that “…upon my direction in law you can ignore the subject of drink and drugs as being in any way a defence to any one or more of the counts in this Indictment.” The judge insisted that assault is not something “which is purely accidental.” While it can be assumed that John was acting under the influence of alcohol and may not know what he was doing at the time he encountered the couple, the fact that he had taken alcohol and drunk was immaterial. As the case of DPP v Majewski [1976], the accused being under the influence of un-prescribed drugs and alcohol did not merit defence, and irrelevant. In the same case, Lord Elwyn Jones, L. C, and at page 287 in the speech of Lord Edmund Davies where he said: “The law therefore establishes a conclusive presumption against the admission of proof of intoxication for the purpose of disproving mens rea in ordinary crimes. Where this presumption applies, it does not make 'drunkenness itself a crime, but the drunkenness is itself an integral part of the crime, as forming, together with the other unlawful conduct charged against the defendant, a complex act of criminal recklessness.” Mens rea for a time was difficult to establish for assault by people who may be seen not having the intention to hurt. Thus, in the speech of Lord Simon of Glaisdale in R v Morgan [1975] “By ‘crimes of basic intent’ I mean those crimes whose definition expresses (or, more often, implies) a mens rea which does not go beyond the actus reus. The actus reus generally consists of an act and some consequence. The consequence may be very closely connected with the act or more remotely connected with it: but with a crime of basic intent the mens rea does not extend beyond the act and its consequence however remote as defined in the actus reus (emphasis mine). I take assault as an example of a crime of basic intent where the consequence is very closely connected with the act. The actus reus of assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. The mens rea corresponds exactly. The prosecution must prove that the accused foresaw that his act would probably cause another person to have apprehension of immediate and unlawful violence or would possibly have that consequence, such being the purpose of the act, or that he was reckless as to whether or not his act caused such apprehension. This foresight (the term of art is ' intention') or recklessness is the mens rea in assault…The prosecution must prove that the accused foresaw that some physical harm would ensue to another person in circumstances unjustified by law as a probable (or possible and desired) consequence of his act, or that he was reckless as to whether or not such consequence ensued,” (page 939). In R. v. Quick (1973) 57 Cr. App. R. 722, The Court of Appeals held that held that the malfunctioning caused by the hypoglaecemia was not a disease of the mind. Lord Justice Lawton said: “ “Such malfunctioning, unlike that caused by a defect of reason from disease of the mind, will always relieve an accused from criminal responsibility. A self-induced incapacity will not excuse (see Lipman (1969) 53 Cr. App. R. 600; (1970) 1 Q. B. 1952) nor will one which could have been reasonably foreseen as a result of either doing, or omitting to do something, as, for example, taking alcohol against medical advice after using certain prescribed drugs, or failing to have regular meals whilst taking insulin. From time to time difficult border line cases are likely to arise. When they do, the test suggested by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Cottle (supra) is likely to give the correct result, viz. can this mental condition be fairly regarded as amounting to or producing a defect of reason from disease of mind?” (p 755) In addition, section 37(3) Mental Health Act 1983, and s 11 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides as follows: “Where a person is charged before a magistrates' court with any act or omission as an offence and the court would have power, on convicting him of that offence, to make an order under subsection (1) above in his case as being a person suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment, then if the court is satisfied that the accused did the act of made the omission charged, the court may, if it thinks fit, make such an order without convicting him.” In M'Naghten's case [1843] UKHL J16 (19 June 1843), the insanity defence was established. Lord Chief Justice Tindal stated: “The question to be determined is, whether at the time the act in question was committed, the prisoner had or had not the use of his understanding, so as to know that he was doing a wrong or wicked act. If the jurors should be of opinion that the prisoner was not sensible, at the time he committed it, that he was violating the laws both of God and man, then he would be entitled to a verdict in his favour: but if, on the contrary, they were of opinion that when he committed the act he was in. a sound state of mind, then their verdict must be against him.” The case of John and the couple with their stillborn infant was unfortunate. On the part of John, his insanity could be helped established through the defence witness of his psychiatrist who had been treating him for months prior to the incident. This will provide a strong basis for his mental disorder. His defence will be unfit for trial. Under the Criminal Law ( Insanity ) Act 2006, a person becomes unfit for trial when: he or she is unable by reason of mental disorder to understand the nature or course of the proceedings so as to— (a) plead to the charge, (b) instruct a legal representative, (c) in the case of an indictable offence which may be tried summarily, elect for a trial by jury, (d) make a proper defence, (e) in the case of a trial by jury, challenge a juror to whom he or she might wish to object, or (f) understand the evidence. (3) (a) Where an accused person is before the District Court (in this section referred to as “the Court”) charged with a summary offence, or with an indictable offence which is being or is to be tried summarily, any question as to whether or not the accused is fit to be tried shall be determined by the Court. (Section 4, P 2). Where mental disorder may become questionable in court for any other reason, assault is the lightest charge John may plead guilty of. While the incident resulted in fatal incidents, each of the three deaths had been indirectly related to John’s actions during the event. MRSA or Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is a bacteria-caused fatal infection acquired by Neil in the hospital, which directly caused Neil’s death. On the case of Annabelle, the death of hr baby and Neil might have caused her too much mental and emotional pain which made her decide to stop seeking medication and instead “join” her baby and her husband. Through internal bleeding, Annabelle died. In R v Savage [1992], Offences Against the Person Act 1861 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100 (the “Act”) viz. section 20, unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm and section 47, assault occasioning actual bodily harm was recalled. There is malice on the wrongdoer who unlawfully inflicts wound or other grievous bodily harm with prior knowledge that it will cause physical harm on another. By pushing Neil and Annabelle, then kicking Neil on the head and stabbing Annabelle with metal objects which are the keys on the abdomen, John commits a violation of this kind. Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 47 states that “Whosoever shall be convicted upon an Indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable…” so that in the case of R v Savage [1992], the Act was cited such: “Where, on a person's trial on indictment for any offence except treason or murder, the jury find him not guilty of the offence specifically charged in the indictment, but the allegations in the indictment amount to or include (expressly or by implication) an allegation of another offence falling within the jurisdiction of the court of trial, the jury may find him guilty of that other offence or of an offence of which he could be found guilty on an indictment specifically charging that other offence.” Where John may not be liable for manslaughter or murder, a lesser or other offence may apply to be found by the jury as may be advised by the judge. Malicious intent may be short in the prosecution of John as he approached the couple in disarming manner, as to express congratulation may be jolly or beyond any intention of causing bodily harm on any of the couple. He also explained his predicament thereby showing that he had not premeditated any attack. Unlike the case of Savage who intentionally threw beer on victim Ms. Beal of which beer also included the container which was a glass and had inflicted would on Ms. Beal, John went to congratulate the couple for being on their way to having a child. Conclusion: There can be several charges that John may become answerable of: attempted murder, manslaughter, and least will be assault. Under attempted murder, the prosecution may cite his actions of pushing Neil and subsequently kicking Neil on the head then stabbing Annabelle with keys. The same argument may apply for manslaughter on Neil’s case. The least resort for the prosecution is assault as bodily harm can be established with the actions of pushing Neil and Annabelle. In addition to pushing Neil to the ground, John kicked Neil on the head and stabbed Annabelle with keys despite her bearing their baby. On John’s end, he may plead guilty of assault as the least severe of the three. However, John’s defence may also file for insanity. The sworn statement of John’s psychiatrist and medical records of John will give credence to his mental state. He was devastated and undergoing psychiatric treatment during the incident. John’s being drunk outside his mental state becomes an irrelevant argument and would only strengthen the case against him. His strongest defence will be insanity or mental disorder. Being in such state, it becomes difficult for the prosecution to establish that John was in his right mind, with the intention to harm and can define what may be wrong or right, moral or not. His actions had been inconsistent upon chancing on the couple. He approached them congratulating them for conceiving a baby. His next action of asking about Annabelle’s pregnancy was another indication on the consistency of John’s state of mind. A stranger would not in his right mind approach strangers and talk about the pregnancy. A normal adult would not barge in between a couple to inform them about being infertile nor engage them in conversation about pregnancy, the topic being biological and personal, thereby inappropriate to conduct with strangers. While his next moves of attacking physically and inflicting harm on the couple were downright wrong and unlawful, at this point, John was already out of his right mind so to speak. The prosecution would no be able to avoid bringing out his psychiatric record and mental condition, thus, defence would resort to insanity. This will make John unfit for trial, as he would not understand what will be happening the same manner that he did not fully understand why he had to approach a couple of strangers, congratulate them and talk to them about his infertility. And the motion will be to negate the proceeding. Reference: Astle v. Astle [1939] Act of 1861 DPP v Majewski [1976] UKHL 2 (13 April 1976). [1976] UKHL 2, [1977] AC 443 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1976/2.html Rex v. Donovan [1934] 2 K.B. 498 Swift J. R v Morgan [1975] 2 W.L.R. 913 M'Naghten's case [1843] UKHL J16 (19 June 1843) 8 ER 718, [1843] UKHL J16 from URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1843/J16.html Criminal Law (Insanity) Act Number 11/2006 from http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2006/0011.html R. v. Quick (1973) 57 Cr. App. R. 722 R v Savage [1992] UKHL 1 (07 November 1991). Cite as: [1992] UKHL 1, [1992] 4 All ER 698, [1991] 94 Cr App R 193, [1992] 1 AC 699 from http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/1.html Read More