Criminal Law - The Mens Rea in the of Homicide, Arson, and Battery - Case Study Example

Introduction Derek killed Alan when Derek set fire to Alan’s flat while Alan was sleeping there, and Alan went to the hospital where he was given a transfusion of the wrong blood type. However, Alan called Derek a “worm” at the bar where Derek spotted Alan with Derek’s ex-girlfriend, so it is possible that Derek was sufficiently provoked to commit the act. However, the provocation occurred four hours before the actual act, so it is doubtful that provocation would be a valid defense. Another factor is that Derek was suffering from blackouts prior to the incident where Alan might have provoked Derek, plus Derek was voluntarily intoxicated, both of which could negate the mens rea of the crime of one or either caused Derek to act without having the intention to commit the crime. Finally, there is the possibility that the actions of the doctor in giving the wrong blood transfusion and taking Alan off of life support would break the chain of causation so that Derek would not be liable for homicide after all. Therefore there a number of possible offenses and a number of possible defenses here for Derek and the Doctor. What homicidal offences might Derek have committed? What are the potential difficulties with regards to mens rea and actus reas? First, did Derek cause death or great bodily harm to Alan? The answer to this is yes, so the actus reus for homicide has been established. Second, can we establish that Derek aimed to cause death or great bodily harm to Alan? If so, then the mens rea for homicide has been established.1 While, in this case, it would be a stretch to state that Derek aimed to kill Alan, it may be shown that he, in fact, did intend great bodily harm to Alan when he set fire to Alan’s flat. What is not known is whether Derek was aware that Alan was inside the flat or not. If Derek had thought that Alan was not in his flat, then it could conceivably be said that Derek did not form the proper mens rea for homicide, because, in that case, Derek would have only had the mens rea for arson and not homicide. On the other hand, if it could be shown that Derek was affirmatively aware that Alan was asleep in the flat, then it could be said that Derek did, indeed, intend to cause great bodily harm to Alan, and the mens rea would be established. At any rate, even if Derek is not responsible for homicide, he would probably be responsible for manslaughter, as one only has to prove, as the actus reus for manslaughter that a person intended an unlawful act to another person for manslaughter to be established. As Derek intended arson on Alan’s home, this could be said that Derek intended an unlawful act on Alan, so he would be guilty of manslaughter even if there is no mens rea for homicide.2 Moreover, the mens rea might be negated by Derek’s intoxication.3 The test here is whether Derek was so intoxicated that he could not form the mens rea that is necessary to commit the homicide. The facts stated that Derek had quickly downed four vodkas. This would certainly make a person drunk, however, the actual crime occurred four hours after Derek drank these vodkas, so Derek was probably not still so intoxicated by vodkas that he could not form the mens rea for the act. That said, the facts also said that Derek was suffering blackouts before the incident, although it is unclear what is causing these blackouts. Therefore, this might be a case of diminished responsibility. The rule on that is there must be present an abnormality of the mind that substantially impairs his mental responsibility.4 This is a possibility – perhaps Derek is suffering from an abnormality that would cause him to perform criminal acts of which he was somehow unaware. If this is the case, then he would have a defence under this. What defences might Derek have to homicide? The first defence will be that of provocation. The elements of provocation are as follows 1) the loss of self-control must coincide with the killing;5 2) a reasonable person would react in the same manner.6 We also have to look at the reasonable person in Derek’s shoes.7 In this case, Derek saw Alan with Derek’s ex-girlfriend, and Alan called Derek a “worthless worm.” However, since the killing did not coincide with the provocation, in that Alan called Derek a worthless worm in the bar, and only went to Alan’s flat some four hours after the insult. Therefore, the very first element for provocation would not be met, so this is not a defence for Derek to homicide. Besides, it is doubtful that a reasonable person would react in the same way, as setting fire to somebody’s flat is an extreme measure and the insult that Alan said to Derek was pretty mild. Another possible defence is that Alan died not as the result of the burns that he received from the fire, but, rather, because he received a blood transfusion of the wrong type. Would this act break the chain of causation sufficiently so that Derek would not be responsible for Alan’s death? It was medical negligence, and medical negligence does not break the chain of causation, unless it was so “independent of his acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that they regard the contribution made by his acts as insignificant.”8 It cannot be said that the negligence was independent of Derek’s act, since, but-for Derek setting fire to Alan’s home, Alan would not have been present in the hospital in the first place, so the causation chain was not broken there. Perhaps Derek may claim that the real cause of death would be a directive that Alan had signed that said that he would be taken off of life support if a certain criteria were met. The facts do not explicitly say that this is the case, but, since the doctor took Alan off of life support only four days after Alan lost consciousness, it was probably because of a directive of some kind. In this case the thin skull rule would apply, which states that you take the victim as you find him. This case is similar to the cases where the victim does not seek medical attention. The decision for a victim to not seek medical attention does not break the chain of causation.9 What other offences might Derek be guilty of? Derek might be guilty of a battery, as the actus reus for battery has been established in that there was a volitional act and actual harm occurred.10 Further, he would probably be guilty of arson, as the Criminal Damage Act states that “an offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.”11 Since he damaged the property by fire, the actus reus for the crime has been established. Since he intended to damage the Alan’s flat, or was reckless as to whether that would happen, he would be liable under this section. He would also be liable under this section for the arson, as he intended to damage property and he was reckless as to whether lives were threatened by his acts, as he was not aware that his neighbors were not home, apparently, and, if the had been home, he would have endangered their lives. The issue with the mens rea is the same as before – Derek might not be responsible for his actions if he could not form the mens rea for the act. As mentioned before, intoxication probably would not be a defense, but diminished capacity might be. There is another possibility, and that it one of automatism, which means that Derek did not have control over his acts.12 In this case, it could be said that Derek was suffering from automatism. It sounds like perhaps his blackouts are the result of an organic reason, such as disease, and perhaps these blackouts may cause Derek to act in a way where he is not conscious of what he is doing. If this is the case, and doctors can prove that this is what happened, Derek may have the defense of automatism for the battery and arson. What are the possible offences that Dr. Gary might have committed? What are the possible defences? He could possibly be found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. The elements of this are - the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased. Dr. Gary did owe a duty to the deceased, as he was committed to undertake Alan’s care. The defendant breached the duty of care – he did this when he gave Alan the wrong blood. The breach caused the death - this is definite.13 Therefore, the actus reus is established for manslaughter by negligence. It would seem that Dr Gary’s negligence was gross, in that it showed a blatant disregard for Alan’s life, as the fact that Alan might die from getting the wrong blood type was not only foreseeable but certain to a reasonable person in Dr. Gary’s position. Further, although it is not clear, Dr. Gary could also be guilty of homicide if Alan did not have a directive regarding whether or not Alan wanted to be taken off of life support, and there was no reason to take him off of life support. In this case, there would be an intent to kill Alan, as Dr. Gary knew that, by taking Alan off of life support that Alan would surely die. The actus reus was established as Dr. Gary intended for Alan to die. However, it would be difficult to establish the mens rea for the homicide, because Dr. Gary could claim that a) there was a medical reason for taking Alan off of life support, therefore, while Dr. Gary did intend to kill Alan, there was a medical reason for it, so he did not have the necessary mens rea. Also, in that case, there would not be a crime, so there would not be an actus reus. As for the gross negligence, there is no mens rea that needs to be proved, as it is a negligence action, not an intentional one, so there is no issue there with that. Conclusion Derek is probably guilty of homicide, arson and battery. The only thing that would save him is if he is able to prove either automatism or diminished capacity. This would mean that he did not have the mens rea for the act, because it means that he did not have the intent to commit a crime. The doctor probably will not be guilty of a crime, unless he is held to be grossly negligent when he gave the wrong blood to Alan, and this will hinge on the facts of why he gave the wrong blood. It is possible that it really wasn’t his fault, like it was mislabeled or something like that. Same with pulling the plug on Alan – the facts about this act are not really that known, so it difficult to tell if he would be guilty of a crime for this act either. Sources Used Criminal Damage Act 1971 Haystead v. DPP (2000) 3 All ER 850 Homicide Act of 1957 R. v. Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8 R v. Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271 R v. Camplin (1978) 1 QB 261 R v. Cheshire (1991) 3 AER 670 R v. Creamer (1966) 1 QB 72 R v. Duffy (1991) 3 AER 670 R v. Nedrick (1986) 1 WLR 1025 R v. Quick (1973) QB 910 R v. Sheehan and Moore (1975) 1 WLR 739 Read More