The Concept of Criminal Liability - Assignment Example

Criminal Liability Criminal Liability Discuss the criminal liability of the various parties in relation to the deaths of Sergio and Kendall, making reference to any potential defenses. Facts Victim Defendant Criminal Liability Potential Defense Sergio and Kendall Jordan -Led to the death of Sergio by hitting him on the head -Not in the right state of mind. -Cause of Death was drowning not Jordan Conrad Joining forces with Jordan -He didn’t intend for Jordan to kill Sergio Sam Planning the attack with Jordan -He didn’t know that what the knife was meant for; furthermore, the knife belonged to Jordan. Walter Causation/Diminished Responsibility No “good Samaritan rule” Jenny -Joining forces with Jordan to kill Sergio -Killed Kendall: Murder -Killing of Sergio: Causation -Covering/hiding the evidence -Didn’t know Jordan’s intention. - Was not in the right state of mind during the murder act. -The murder was an act of self defense. -Kendall death was suicidal. Table of cases Liability Cases Manslaughter R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880; R v Ball 1989 CLR 730, R v Watson (1989) 2 All ER 865, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, R v Carey and others (2006) EWCA Crim 17. Joint Entreprise R v Lane and Lane (1986) 82 Cr App R 5 and R v Aston and Mason (1992) 94 Cr App R 180 Causation Lord Woolf MR in R v HM Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344 R v Kennedy (2007) 3 W.L.R. 612 1. Jordan Criminal Liability The criminal liability of Jordan can be in the form of manslaughter charges1. The charges related to manslaughter can be can be made if any of the three conditions are met; (i) killing with murder with the intent, in other words killing intentionally. It must have the application of a partial defense: loss of control, “killing pursuant to a suicide pact” or diminished responsibility. It can also be referred to as voluntary manslaughter; (ii) conduct that is deemed to be negligent in terms of death risk, and ended up killing someone. This is referred to as gross negligence manslaughter”; and (iii) conduct that entails some form of act that is unlawful and that can cause harm and has resulted in death. His is referred to us “unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter.” Jordan can be charged under (i) and/ or (iii)2. The charges on Sergio could be based on the fact that he planned to kill Sergio after seeing him with his fiancée Kendall. This planning act can be witnessed after him meeting his friend Conrad that gave him the idea that both Sergio and Kendall should be taught a lesson. The fact that he acts Sam a knife a day after and using the same knife to hit Sergio on the head makes it a planned activity. The element of it being intentional also can be seen in respect to the fact that the knife was meant for hunting. It is, therefore, clear that the reason Jordan wanted the knife is to “haunt” Sergio. Jordan followed Sergio for a given distance before hitting him. For him to have known where they were going or that they will be together is an act of stalking. There was no confrontation the same time in relation to any argument between the two. He drops the knife and runs from the scene only after being satisfied that Sergio is dead. All this elements show that Jordan had the intention to kill Sergio thus has a criminal liability under the law of voluntary manslaughter3. The criminal liability of involuntary manslaughter is justified based on the fact that Jordan has been stalking Sergio and Kendall for a while. This is the only way through which he would have known where Sergio and Kendall were. The act of Jordan hitting Sergio on the head if deemed not intentional then it was meant to harm. It is unlawful to conduct such an act more so on human beings. These unlawful acts of Jordan are the major cause of Sergio’s death4. Jordan also could be with murder in a court of law once the prosecutor can prove that; Jordan’s ability to (i) understand his conduct, (ii) form a rational judgment and, (iii) exercise self- control has been impaired substantially. The charges will be based on the fact that Jordan was on his right mind and killed Sergio unlawfully. The killing act was not in self defence, neither was it a justified act. The ability to prove that Jordan had the intent to Kill Sergio would make the prosecutor case stronger5. Jordan could also be sued in the court of law under the doctrine of causation6. This is based on the fact that despite the truth being that he did not kill Sergio, he contributed to Sergio’s death. If he would not have hit Sergio in the first place, Sergio would not have ended in the River Wear. This is causation by an action which at a given degree is the substantial death cause. It is important to note that the act need not to be the main cause but a contributing factor to why Sergio died- Lord Woolf MR in R v HM Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344. The act was not also the sole cause of Sergio’s death thus making it qualify for causation case7. Potential Defense Potential defense against voluntary manslaughter is that Jordan never intended to kill Sergio. If he intended he wouldn’t have used the handle of the knife to hit Sergio but the knife’s blade. Similarly, if he wanted to kill Sergio he would not have gone to the head which is covered in the skull but a softer place like the stomach or the neck. Potential defence against involuntary manslaughter and causation is that though the act was directed towards Sergio: R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 18808, it was not done by a reasonable and sober person. Jordan was still grieving his mother and no matter how he struggled. Jordan act was not a dangerous one, it was meant to frighten Sergio and not to harm him: R v Ball 1989 CLR 730. Potential defence in relation to murder case against Jordan is that the death of his mother had affected Jordan mentally. This made him not to understand his conduct, make an appropriate judgment and exercise self- control9. 2. Conrad .Criminal Liability Conrad can be sued under the joint venture charges10. This tries to say that they associated with Jordan in the killing of Sergio. The association is seen when he advises Jordan to go ahead and teach Sergio and Kendall a lesson. The idea seems to be his and not Jordan’s idea. Jordan may have not been in the appropriate state of mind and therefore the influence came from Conrad. Conrad is seen to encourage Jordan to commit the offence11. Potential Defense There was no collusion between Conrad and Jordan during the time of the murder12. The relationship between Conrad and Jordan was based on friendship and all that Conrad gave was a piece of advice. The word that Conrad used was for Jordan to “discipline” Sergio and Kendall. The word on its own might have several meaning but murder. How would one discipline another person through killing the person? Disciplining in simple language means that you correct someone and therefore by no means can it be equated to death or killing of another person. The day that Conrad talked to Jordan and gave the advice also was a different day that the murder was committed. The number of days in between is more than four and therefore couldn’t have influenced the actions of Jordan. There is a probability that Jordan talked with other people in relation to the same issue and therefore Conrad shouldn’t be blamed for anything. In case Jordan misunderstood Conrad advice due to the ambiguity of the word “discipline”, then Jordan should be held responsible since he had the opportunity to ask for clarity13. Another potential defense will be working to see that Jordan is not guilty14. This is based on the precedence principle set out in the case R v Lane and Lane (1986) Cr App R 5 and later restated in R v Aston and Mason (1992) 94 Cr App R 180 say that hen two people are indicted jointly for committing a crime and there is no evidence pointing to one defendant or the other, and there is no evidence showing that they were working together in committing the crime, both of them should be set free by the jury. If Jordan is deemed not to be guilty it therefore means Conrad cannot be guilty. This is based on the fact that if the principal offender is not guilty then how does Conrad turn to be an accomplice to a crime that is not committed in the first place15. 3. Sam Criminal Liability The prosecution can sue Sam under the doctrine of joint venture16 as an accomplice to the Jordan’s act. This can be based on the fact that he issued the haunting knife to Jordan. The fact that they have been sharing this haunting knife shows that they are close. Sam though might not have known the use of the knife, the issuance of the knife might time him tag him to the offence. This is through the fact that he was associating with the principal offender17. Potential Defence Sam was a work colleague to Jordan and it was just appropriate for them to relate well as job colleagues18. Beyond the job activities and relationship, Sam knew little about Jordan and his life. If Sam gave the haunting knife to John, it is because it belonged to him. This means Sam shouldn’t be condemned but praised for doing the right thing. In this case the right thing is making sure that he returns to Jordan his knife when he wanted it. Sam was not aware of what Jordan wanted the haunting knife for. And there was no by any chance that he would know that given the fact that they are just colleagues in a place of work. Sam having and issuing the knife back to Jordan who is the owner is just a coincidence that should not be used to make him an accomplice19. Another base of argument will be based on the situation that Jordan is set free as the principle offender20. The argument will therefore be that how Sam can make a partner in a joint venture yet he is alone. If the principal offender to which Sam is said to have joint- ventured with is found not to be guilty then it is automatic that Sam is not guilty as per the charges. The precedence principle set out in the case R v Lane and Lane (1986) Cr App R 5 and later restated in R v Aston and Mason (1992) 94 Cr App R 180 say that hen two people are indicted jointly for committing a crime and there is no evidence pointing to one defendant or the other, and there is no evidence showing that they were working together in committing the crime, both of them should be set free by the jury21. 4. Walter Criminal Liability Walter can be sued is a court of law doctrine of causation22 in which one could claim he is the reason Sergio died. This is not by an act but through omitting an act. Walter saw Sergio floating in the water and did nothing about it but just moved on assuming that it is a love gone wrong case. In this case, his act of omission can be said to be the substantial cause of Sergio’s death23. There was still hope that if Sergio would have been saved early enough then he had not have died out of drowning. Walter act had "more than minimally negligibly or trivially contributed to the death." - Lord Woolf MR in R v HM Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344. It doesn’t matter if the omission only hastened the death of Sergio but what matters is that there was an omission committed: R v Dyson (1908) 1 Cr App R 13. In this case, suing in relation to the doctrine of causation is not difficult causation since omission was not the substantial cause of death. The only thing that the prosecution need in this case is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that without omission on Walter’s part, Sergio would not have died and in replica, Kendall would have been alive. This is due to the fact that Kendall committed suicide due to the fact that he couldn’t leave without Sergio’s presence. This makes Sergio’s death as the major cause of Kendall’s act of suicide. Prevention of Sergio’s death would have therefore seen that Kendall is still alive. Since the act of Jordan was not the only sole act to why Sergio died, the doctrine of causation applies in this case (Refer to R v Kennedy (2007) 3 W.L.R. 612.)24 Potential Defense The first potential defense can be in the argument of the interventions of the third party25. Walter’s act of not helping the victims was deliberate, free, voluntary act, informed and none could have seen that it could lead to death. He acted in a manner of self defence so as not to get into family issues.R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279. The use of the nature or God act can also be deployed in the sense that Walter didn’t want to act a good Samaritan and also the things that happened before Sergio’s death showed that his death had already reached. It is important o note that Sergio was already floating by the time Walter was passing, so no matter Walter’s action had been reversed, still Sergio couldn’t have made it. The second argument can be based on the doctrine of duty of care26. Under this doctrine, Walter didn’t owe Sergio any duty of care, so if Sergio died it had nothing to do with Walter. Since there is no “rule of good Samaritan”, the act of Walter deciding not to get into Sergio and Kendall’s issues is justified. The duty of care never existed in this case (R. v Wacker (2003) 1 Cr App R 329; R v Willoughby (2004) ECWA Crim 3365). Walter couldn’t foresee that Sergio was going to die and according to him, he had reasoned by not going to help(Donohue v Stevenson (1932) AC 582)27. 5. Jenny Criminal Liability Jenny’s first criminal liability is from the fact that he joined forces with Jordan so as to see that Sergio and Kendall are “punished”. This could be sued in the court of law under the doctrine of Joint Enterprise28. The fact that she was together with Jordan and the same time knew Jordan’s intention make her an accomplice to Jordan’s act. This shows that Jenny was actually assisting Jordan in the act of revenge against Sergio and Kendall. This case can be made stronger if her act of rolling Sergio in the river could be proven to be an act of hiding evidence. This makes her a stronger accomplice to Jordan who had escaped the scene without covering the traces. The second criminal liability is that Jenny could be charged with murder29. This is based on the fact that it can be proven that she had a sound mind during the action and that’s why she even tried to cover up for Jordan. The fact that she has killed Kendall unlawfully under the intention of killing or causing a bodily harm under the Queen’s peace makes the case a murder case. Jenny’s act didn’t kill Kendall to sum it up. Kendall’s death was caused due to her suicidal act on grief of her lover Kendall. Jenny’s third criminal liability could be based on the doctrine of causation30. The act of her pushing Kendall in the water hastened Sergio’s death. If she had not pushed him in the River Wear, Sergio would not have drowned and would have been a life based on the fact that autopsy conducted found drowning as the death cause- R v Dyson (1908) 1 Cr App R 1331. Potential Defense The first potential defense under the doctrine of joint venture32 is the claim that Jenny was not aware of Jordan’s intention. She didn’t even know that Jordan was carrying a knife and the main reason she joined Jordan was because Jordan asked her to as a friend. There is no evidence that that shows that Jenny had planned the activity with Jordan neither is there evidence that show that she had the intention to harm either Sergio or Kendall. The second defence under the same doctrine links to Jordan’s case, if Jordan is set free or deemed to be with no intention to kill then Jenny should be acquitted since she can’t be accomplice to a principal offender who doesn’t exist. The first potential defense under murder charges for the case of Jenny can be based argued on the sense that she lost control33. Sections 55 and 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 allow the argument to be based on loss of control. The activities that had happened in the area of crime were too much for Jenny and therefore the act was not out of a stable mind. Jenny was horrified by the incidences that had occurred since she didn’t expect it to happen. The second potential defence is based on self defence34. Jenny’s act was out of panic seeing Kendall coming towards her; she had not intended to harm her. The potential defence for the case of causation35 will be aimed at breaking the “chain of causation”. This is through the use of the acts that intervene that will see to it that Jenny’s act becomes the sole cause of Sergio’s death. The aim of this defence will see to it that Jenny’s liability is relieved from her- Consider R v Kennedy (2007) 3 W.L.R. 612. Bibliography Kenneth E. M. (2010) ‘Embracing the path forward: The journey to justice continues’, New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, Vol.36, No. 2, August, pp. 197- 232. Robert H. (2008) ‘Beyond a conceivable doubt: The quest for a fair and constitutional standard of proof in death penalty cases’, New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, Vol. 34, No. 2, August, pp. 22- 290. Timothy E. H. (2009) ‘Guilty by association: What the decision in boston housing authority v. garcia means for the innocent family members of criminals living in public housing in massachusetts’, New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, Vol. 35, No. 1, April, pp. 213- 242. Read More