Criminal Liability Advice to Janet - Case Study Example

Criminal liability advice to Janet Introduction The two basic elements of any criminal act are the act of committing a crime (actus reus) and the criminal intention (mens rea). The actus reus provides for the physical elements of committing the crime and is usually demonstrated by the application of any force or threat to unlawful force1. The mens rea refers to the ‘guilty mind’ or the intention of committing the crime and is demonstrated by the element of intent. In other cases, the cases do not require the mens rea requirement as the culpability for the crime since the defendant may have acted negligently rather than intentionally thus leading to absolute liability for the criminal act. According to the actus reus doctrine, the law requires a demonstration that the criminal act like murder occurred due to voluntary act and omission2. In this case, the criminal act like the death of Leone requires that Janet to be criminally responsible for her voluntary conduct. According to escape cases, if a victim suffers injury or has is killed while escaping a serious attack, then it follows that the victim’s behaviour of running away was within the range of a foreseeable response to the defendant’s behaviour. According to the ‘thin skull’ rule, it follows that health conditions can lead to the attack been liable for more serious injuries and even death of the victim. Criminal liability to Luke According to the s.47 of the Offences Against a Person Act 1861, the law provides that a person commits an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. According to R. v. Miller (1954) 2 All Er 529 the court ruled that actual bodily harm includes any injury or hurt that interferes with the comfort or the health of the victim. In this case, Janet has committed an actual bodily harm to her boyfriend, Luke. In the case of R v. Chan Fook (1994) 1 WLR 689, the court held that the injury should not be insignificant, but should also not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant. The actual bodily injury can also include the psychological harm that results from the defendant’s act3. According to Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, a person is criminally liable for unlawfully or maliciously wounding or inflicting any grievous bodily harm upon any other person either with or without a weapon or any other instrument. In case of conviction, the defendant is liable to be kept in penal servitude4. The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and unlimited fine on indictment. Accordingly, the maximum imprisonment term is pegged at six years while the fine does not exceed the statutory maximum. The definition of wounding also includes the breaking the outer skin as with the case with luke whereby blood dripped on to his white jacket. The appropriate charge for this case is serious bodily harm since the injury has led to substantial loss of blood. Generally, the courts will consider the seriousness of the injury or the harm in determining the degree of culpability. The courts will consider the use of weapon or any other object in causing the harm to the victim and the intention to cause more serious harm that has actually resulted from the criminal act. In this case, Janet used an Umbrella to hit Luke thus, she may have intended to cause more serious harm. Criminal liability towards Leone’s death According to offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 16 provides that a person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it or threatens to kill the other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction for a term not exceeding more than ten years. In this case, Janet has injury Leone after injuring Luke by uttering the words ‘you are next’. Janet has committed a common assault offence against Leone by threatening her with physical injury. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that a person is liable to imprisonment term not exceeding six months or fine not exceeding level five if convicted of such offence. The actus reus provides that a person is liable for common assault if he or she causes another to fear or apprehend that force is about to be used and cause possible injury. In this case, Leone has feared that Janet is likely to use force as she did on Luke and that is why she ran away while screaming. In the case of Fagan v. MPC (1969) 1 Q.B. 439, the house of Lords defined assault as whereby the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence5. The actus reus entails apprehension of immediate violence as evidenced in the case of Logdon v. DPP (1976) Crim LR 121 whereby the court held that apprehending immediate unlawful violence will lead to common assault even though the actual violence does not occur. Common assault also amount from uttering words that lead to fear as with the court of appeal case of R. v. Constanza (1997). The mens rea of assault is evidenced by intentional or recklessness of the defendant in causing the immediate unlawful violence6. According to the law of causation, the prosecution will have the obligation of proofing that the death occurred due to Janet’s act and difficulties will naturally arise when there is more than one cause of death. Causation is divided in to factual and legal causation. The factual causation applies the ‘but for’ test and suffices whenever there are no complicating factors. Under legal causation, the result of death is caused by a culpable act and there are no requirements that the acts of the defendant were the only cause of death. In this case, legal causation asserts that there must be no intervening factors that will cause the death of the victim (thin skull rule)7. If the results of threats or harm are reasonable foreseeable, the legal causation exists since the harm suffered or death results from the defendant’s actus. legal causation was evidenced in the case of R v. Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273, but it does not apply in the cases that involve strict liability. In the case of R v. Benge (1865) 4 F & F 504, the court held that the defendant’s acts need not be the only cause of harm, but such harm must be significant. Some characteristics of the victim that may provide insights that the victim died when a fittest person would have survived the danger will also be considered. In this case, the doctrine is to proof the criminal liability of the defendant as the consequences for the death and the prosecution has a duty of proofing that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence. The original injury caused by the defendant (Janet) must be the substantial and operative cause of death and the acceleration of death due to Janet’s acts must be more than minimal. Janet has also committed a crime of involuntary manslaughter due to her unlawful act of assault on Leone. Manslaughter is committed when the accused causes the death of another due to dangerous or unlawful acts. Court of Appeal in the case of R. v, Mitchell (1983) 2 WLR 938, outlined that the defendant must have committed unlawful act, the act must be dangerous in the sense that a reasonable and sober person will recognize it as having risk of harm. In addition, the act must be a substantial cause of the death and the accused must have intended to commit the unlawful act without intending or foreseeing its consequences8. The assault has possibility of physical harm as opposed to emotional injury and the mens rea for the assault consists of the mens rea for the unlawful act (assault of Leone) itself. The defendant (Janet need not realize the possibility of the harm to be liable. Although Janet has not touched or injured Leone, she is liable for constructive manslaughter since her unlawful act of assault is the cause of the death. Constructive manslaughter is the involuntary manslaughter whereby unlawful killing takes place when the defendant has no intention or mens rea of murder. Janet has committed unlawful dangerous act that has caused the death. In the case of R. v. Franklin (1983)15 Cox CC 163, the court held that unlawful act must be present and the act need not be directed to the victim as evidenced by the court ruling in the case of R v. Larkin (1942) 29 Cr App R 18. The objective test for such acts is that it would make a reasonable and sober person regard it as giving rise to harm through observing. The mens rea is irrelevant in criminal cases as evidenced in the court ruling of the case of DPP v. Newbury (1977) AC 5009. In the case of R v. Hayward (1908) 21 Cox 692, the defendant shouted threats to his wife leading her to collapse and die without even physical touch. The wife was suffering from thyroid condition that could lead to death due to fright and panic. The court demonstrated the application of the thin skull (egg shell) rule and concluded that the defendant was liable for constructive manslaughter due to unlawful assault. According to this rule, the defendant (Janet) is liable for the constructive manslaughter of Leone despite that an ordinary person would not have died under such circumstances such as frightening and panic. The defendant must ‘take his victim as he finds him10. In this case, the chain of causation has not been broken and the unlawful acts of Janet have contributed to manslaughter. In the case of hitting a policeman PC Janet has committed an offense against a person through the direct physical harm. Section 89 of the Police Act 1996 provides that any person who assaults a constable in the execution of his duty or any person assisting the constable in the execution of duties is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not more than level five on the standard scale. From the above case, Janet resisted arrest by a Policeman PC and went further to slap the officer. In this case, Code of Crown Prosecutors makes it clear that officers must select charges that will reflect the seriousness of the offence11. Conclusion Janet is criminally for causing bodily harm to Luke, for causing direct physical harm to Policeman PC contrary to Section 89 of the Police Act 1996 and constructive manslaughter of Leone. In the court proceedings, Janet will have to demonstrate that are unlawful acts were caused by diminished responsibility at the time of the criminal acts. Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 provides that the defendant can use diminished responsibility as a defense. Bibliography: Loveless, Janet. Complete criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. Martin, Jacqueline and Storey, Tony. Unlocking criminal law. London: Routledge. 2013. Criminal Justice Act 1988. Offences Against a Person Act 1861. R v. Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273. Fagan v. MPC (1969) 1 Q.B. 439. R v. Chan Fook (1994) 1 WLR 689. Read More