Criminal Liability - Shamrock Cafe Violence - Essay Example

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; SHAMROCK CAFÉ VIOLENCE Due Criminal Liability; Shamrock Café Violence Criminal liability is the legal responsibility that an individual must bear for an omission or an act (Cassese 2013, 89). Morris (2001, 90) defined criminal liability as the liability for which the actus reus committed by the mens rea may require minimal proof. According to Epstein (1980, 56), the most significant elements considered in the offense are intention and recklessness. Statsky (2012, 78) illustrated that the criminal liability, often meted out in what is referred to as the strict liability, is a resultant of the factors that saw to numerous acquittals in the 19th century. Accordingly, the legal enigma resulted as there was always little or no proof in relation to actus reus. As Gardner and Anderson (2009, 37) illustrated, this is an innovation of the law that saw to the improvements that increased the number of criminal convictions. Some of the legal improvements that were made in the criminal laws at that time stipulated that ignorance of all or any of the factors contributing to the committed offense/offenses could not guarantee an acquittal (Lanham 2006, 87). In the said instance, Andy and Tim’s actions could be based on ignorance or selective reading of the constitution on the right to demonstrate (Zedner & Roberts 2012, 44). The constitution protects the rights to demonstrations but clarifies that violence during the demonstrations is a criminal act and that every individual bears responsibility for their actions. This is the legal definition of the constitutional demonstration that the two predators failed to comprehend (Woods 2002, 45). Judging by their violence and destruction, and by the nature of physical harm that they caused to Nora and Oisin, the two individuals bear responsibility for their actus reus (Statsky 2012, 56). Causation into the actions of the offenders would indeed prove that they committed multiple criminal offenses; burnt a property, threatened the lives of individuals, and caused commotion in the public. Their actions do not even need a mens rea. For instance, Andy, in swinging his pickaxe at Nora and Oisin, caused them to cause physical harm to the dog by breaking its paw. Moreover, Andy shattered the bus shelter’s glass pane in his attempt to fight back at Oisin. Tim, on the other hand, set fire to the café in a reaction that significantly damaged property in the building (Gardner & Anderson 2009, 39). When Andy swung his pickaxe at Nora, she got convinced that he was aiming at hurting her (Robinson 2005, 8). This factor spurred her instinctive reaction to step aside and ended up breaking the dog’s paw (Monaghan 2012, 33). The perpetrator’s defense could be that he did not intend to hurt the lady and merely wanted to scare her into joining his demonstration. However, this is a criminal offense that is comparable to the R v Blake case of 14th August 1996 (The Times), Andy may be proven a guilty mind as he acted viciously albeit without much of an intent to hurt Nora (Traynor 1965, 44). Blake was convicted of a strict liability offense of social and security concern (Lanham 2006, 89). His offense had been to operate a radio station without any legal documentation/licensing. In defense, the defendant had claimed that he had no knowledge of and had not intended to transmit (Epstein 1980, 56). The court’s ruling in Blake’s case had been influenced by the Lord Scarmon’s projections of the Gammon Principles that stated that the defendant was liable as he had the knowledge of using the gadgets that transmitted. Possession and usage of an element are the factors that get used to define knowledge. Seemingly, Andy had the knowledge of possessing and using/swinging his pickaxe at Nora which is a factor that makes him criminally liable for his actions (Morris 2001, 90). The duo committed harm to a significant degree. Brody and Acker (2010, 78) explained that ‘harm’ is varied and is inclusive of but not limited to psychological harm, financial harm, and even the already discussed physical harm. When an individual commits such actions, Morris (2001, 90) explained that they are often violating the constitutional elements that protect their victims and such make themselves subject for criminal trials. Andy’s actions largely caused physical harm (Woods 2002, 45). However, Tim’s actions progressively developed as he exhibited his violence. He started by scribbling a writing that encouraged clients to boycott the services and goods of the café on the café’s door. He so acted with the knowledge that the writing could have an impact with the clients (Heller 2011, 10). However, his actions had no consent from the restaurant’s owner which implies that he violated the constitutional provisions that protect businesses and individuals and their interests. This factor threatened the business’ financial returns for the day (Lanham 2006, 87). Tim’s actions also bear a lot of semblance with the 1875 case, LR 2 CCR 154 of R v Prince, in which Prince, the defendant, was charged with taking a sixteen-year old girl out of her father’s possession. Prince had claimed that he had had no knowledge that the girl was under the age of eighteen which is the legal age of an adult. Legally, all minors are supposed to be under the care of adults. Moreover, engaging the minors in some kinds of activities can surmount to legal prosecution for criminal behavior. Such activities include drinking with or selling drinks to the minors, or even engaging with them in sexual activity. However, Prince admitted to the knowledge that the girl had been at that time, under her father’s care. Despite his claim of ignorance, Prince was charged with the intentional crime of taking the girl away from her father’s possession (Heffernan & Kleinig 2000, 56). In this situation, Tim may as well claim that he had no knowledge that writing on the café’s door would cause harm to the business. However, it is clear that he did intend to make clients to stop getting into the café with the writing. His action can therefore be considered as a criminal offense with an actus reus (Brody and Acker 2010, 77). Before they fled, Tim committed a true crime by intentionally setting the restaurant on fire (Cryer 2010, 34). The offender had made his intentions clear when he called the manager and warned him that he would set the house ablaze if he would not comply with their demands of joining the demonstrations. Monaghan (2012, 33) explained that such situations do not require a mens rea and a legal court would be compelled to use strict liability to pass judgment. Clarity to the case can be drawn from the case of Gammon Ltd (Hong Kong) v the Attorney General (Hong Kong) (1985) AC 1. In this instance, the appellant admitted his offense of deviating from the construction plans of the building whose construction he had been credited. However, he claimed that his offense had been minor and not substantial and therefore warranted leniency. The Attorney General maintained the initial ruling and clarified that the appellant’s miss actions were those of a strict liability in which case his opinion did not matter (United States 1993, 31). Tim had acted with the opinion that he only aimed to instigate the individuals in the restaurant to join him in the demonstrations. However, his actions threatened the lives of the people within the building and damaged property of significant value (Moore 2010, 86). The opinion of making an attempt to kick start a demonstration for fair trade would therefore not hold any legal value. Moreover, the use of strict liability will be perceived as the legal action aimed at meting out justice and protecting the public, especially as this incident is deemed dangerous to the security of the public. The Criminal Theories that Explain Andy and Tim’s Offenses Considerably, Andy and Tim had moved to the café and openly threatened to take certain actions in the event that their planned demonstration did not start as planned. Tim chose to telephone the café’s manager, threatened him and subsequently set the café ablaze. Moreover, Andy acted under no compulsion when he charged at Oisin and Nora. His action of swinging the pickaxe at the couple was also premeditated as he had planned to scare them into action (Shute & Simester 2002, 42). Moreover, these actions had been planned, a fact that is proven by the kind of equipment that the perpetrators carried to the scene (Fletcher 2000, 23). Andy did not pick his pickaxe at the scene, nor did Tim his cartons of petrol. Clearly, the duo had carried their ‘tools’ from someplace where they had seemingly planned to use them, albeit maybe to a limited extent had things gone as planned. Sistare (1989, 53) explained that premeditated intentions are classified under the choice theory. In such situations, the offenders always consider their opportunities by weighing the benefits and the risks before committing to any. Husak (2007, 40) elaborated that the situation, referred to as the cost-benefit analysis, often drives the perpetrator to the belief that the choice to proceed with the actions are worthy of the punishments involved. The choice theory applies in situations in where the offenders are not deterred by anything from committing their crimes. Tim and Andy had clearly comprehended the ideas of committing their crimes which is why they both carried the weapons/tools to the crime scene. Their actions were therefore based on the choices of facing the consequences/punishments. The other theory that highlights their actions is the Conflict Theory that elaborates the crimes that are resultant of the societal conflicts (Cools 2009, 78). According to Herring (2014, 89), such crimes fundamentally arise from either the economic or social forces that often define the aggression of the rich at oppressing the poor. Laws that were created to this nature, as Fletcher (2000, 20) described, are often aimed at creating a distinction between the haves and the haves not. Tim and Andy’s action were clearly inspired by the economic oppression that the café had been committing to the poor by refusing to buy their coffee. Albeit actions were inspired by the desire to eliminate the economic parities in the society, their actions led them to commit an offense that would definitely not require a mens rea (Haveman, Kavran & Nicholls 2003, 52). Causation Causation is the determination of the harm conducted by a defendant (Simester & Sullivan 2004, 13). Factual causation is applied with the projection of the ‘but for’ tests (Heller 2011, 9). That implies that the questioning of a defendant’s actions is only made to evaluate whether their actions are the ultimate cause of a crime (Davidson 1999, 45). In the event that it can be proven that the crime/event would have occurred anyway, the defendant is not held liable to his actions. However, if the event is proven to have been triggered by the defendant, then they are held liable (United States 1993, 34). Jed and Tim’s actions are both illustrations of factual causations (Hall 2006, 39). While it is clear that Tim’s actions were actually intentional and occurred as he had planned, the utterances made by Jed, the Shamrock’s Café manager, could be considered as insults (Bassiouni & Bassiouni 1987, 57). Tim may have only intended to threaten the manager. Ideally, his actions may have been reactions to the insults made by Jed when he called him an idiot. Jed’s full sentiment was, ‘Yea right! Am not frightened of you or anyone. You are a right idiot!’. However, Jed cannot be held liable for his actions as Tim could have clearly burnt down the café anyway because his plans had not matured as he had desired (Haveman, Kavran & Nicholls 2003, 52). The R v White case of 1910, 2 KB 124 offers an insight into the situation. White who had been accused of poisoning his mother’s milk was only held liable for attempt for murder but not murder itself. That is because the autopsy uncovered that his mother had indeed died of a heart attack and not from the poison (Zaleha 1988, 21). Self-Defense; Criminal Law Act 1967 It is notable that the couple of Oisin and Nora, who had been approaching Shamrock Café, were oblivious of the unfolding scenario at the café. Ideally, they were a decent couple who intended no harm to anybody and were only headed to the café for a meal. Nonetheless, Andy aggressively advanced toward them and swung his pickaxe at them. Nora instinctively reacted to save herself (Acker & Malatesta 2013, 54), and ended up stepping on and breaking the dog’s paw. To protect his partner, Oisin grabbed Andy’s wrist and hurt him in the process. Allen (2007, 52) explained that in such situations, the couple would be convicted of two offenses; breaking the dog’s paw and twisting Andy’s wrist. However, they acted compulsively and had no chance/time to make a choice between not harming or hurting anything or anybody and any other reaction (United States 1993, 34). According to Werro and Palmer (2003, 67), these are actions of self defenses. Claes (2006, 67) and Bassiouni and Bassiouni (1987, 57) also explained that legal provisions for self-defenses are provided for in the common law and the Criminal Law Act of 1967. Self-defense in this sense is the action that an individual may take to protect their lives or the lives of other people, but that amounts to crime (Allen 2007, 52). The situation at the Shamrock Café is draws similarity to the R v Rose case of 1884, 15 Cox 540 in which Rose, the defendant, was acquitted of murder on the grounds of self-defense. Rose had shot and killed his farther who was making an aggressive attempt to take away his mother’s life. Similarly, Oisin acted aggressively in defense of Nora who had felt was threatened by Andy who had swung a pickaxe at her (Jacobs and Potter 1998, 23). On the other hand, Nora had reacted to distance herself from the axe that had been swung at her by Andy. Citizen’s Arrest Patti’s actions on the criminal scene were of concern as she had observed Andy’s criminal actions and decided to stop him from fleeing. Herring (2014, 89) referred to such civilian reactions and actions as the citizen’s arrest. Defining citizen’s arrest, Statsky (2012, 78), explained that they are the arrests made by individuals who are not sworn enforcement officials. Though Patti’s reaction could be primarily justified as she made the attempt to stop a fleeing aggressor, her actions resulted into an injury for Andy (Jackson 2003, 18). In fact, the situation was grave as Andy required medical assistance to stitch up the tear that he suffered on his face. Patti would hence be charged with causing an injury to Andy and violating his civil rights by unlawfully detaining him (Jacobs and Potter 1998, 23). However, it can be argued that Patti acted within her legal limits by providing aid in stopping the eminent danger that Andy and his compatriot had become to the community (Fletcher 2007, 89). According to Werro and Palmer (2003, 67), this is a citizen responsibility of crime prevention. Considering that Andy was actually fleeing yet he had projected his aggression and danger by starting a fight with Oisin and Nora, there was the urgent necessity for stopping him. Moreover, apprehending Andy would have been easier and without any injuries had he not been so determined to escape (Baker, Horder & Williams 2013, 42). The determination had inspired him to flee at high speeds, a factor that aggravated his injury (Zaleha 1988, 23). Conclusion Criminal liability/strict liability, as the responsibility for which an offender must be tried, is subject to two significant factors; legal causation and the factual causation (Claes 2006, 67). These factors define the intent of the actions of an offender and their ultimate repercussions (Gaylord, Gittings & Traver 2009, 38). However, such criminal behavior can also be explained by criminal theories that define the purpose, intent, results, and even cause of a crime. The Shamrock Café incidence is a complicated situation in which several crimes are projected (Herring 2014, 89). However, it can be argued that some of the offenders acted within their legal limits either in self-defense or in committing citizen’s arrests (Fletcher 2007, 89). The most significant guilty minds (mens rea) are Tim and Andy whose actions clearly define their intentions. List of References ACKER, J. R., & MALATESTA, J. M. (2013). Introduction to law and criminal justice. Burlington, MA, Jones & Bartlett Learning. ALLEN, M. J. (2007). Textbook on criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. BAKER, D. J., HORDER, J., & WILLIAMS, G. L. (2013). The sanctity of life and the criminal law: the legacy of Glanville Williams. BASSIOUNI, M. C., & BASSIOUNI, M. C. (1987). A draft international criminal code and draft statute for an international criminal tribunal. Dordrecht, M. Nijhoff. BRODY, D. C., & ACKER, J. R. (2010). Criminal law. Sudbury, Mass, Jones and Bartlett Publishers. CASSESE, A. (2013). Casseses International criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. CLAES, E. (2006). Privacy and the criminal law. Antwerpen [u.a.], Intersentia. COOLS, M. (2009). Readings on criminal justice, criminal law & policing. Antwerpen, Belguim, Maklu. CRYER, R. (2010). An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge [UK], Cambridge University Press. DAVIDSON, M. J. (1999). A guide to military criminal law: [a practical guide for all the services]. Annapolis, Md, Naval Inst. Press. EPSTEIN, R. A. (1980). A theory of strict liability. San Francisco, Cal, Cato Inst. FLETCHER, G. P. (2000). Rethinking criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. FLETCHER, G. P. (2007). The grammar of criminal law: American, comparative, and international. Oxford, Oxford University Press. GARDNER, T. J., & ANDERSON, T. M. (2009). Criminal law. Australia, Thomson/Wadsworth. GAYLORD, M. S., GITTINGS, D., & TRAVER, H. (2009). Introduction to crime, law and justice in Hong Kong. Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press. HALL, J. (2006). General principles of criminal law. Clark (NJ), The Lawbook Exchange. HAVEMAN, R. H., KAVRAN, O., & NICHOLLS, J. (2003). Supranational criminal law: a system sui generis. Antwerp, Intersentia. HEFFERNAN, W. C., & KLEINIG, J. (2000). From Social Justice to Criminal Justice Poverty and the Administration of Criminal Law. New York, Oxford University Press. HELLER, K. J. (2011). The Nuremberg military tribunals and the origins of international criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. HERRING, J. (2014). Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. HUSAK, D. N. (2007). Overcriminalization: the limits of the criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. JACKSON, M. (2003). Criminal law in Hong Kong. Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press. JACOBS, J. B., & POTTER, K. (1998). Hate crimes criminal law & identity politics. New York, Oxford University Press. LANHAM, D. (2006). Criminal laws in Australia. Annandale, N.S.W., The Federation Press. MONAGHAN, N. (2012). Criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. MOORE, M. S. (2010). Placing blame: a general theory of the criminal law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. MORRIS, H. (1982). Freedom and responsibility: readings in philosophy and law. Stanford, Calif, Stanford Univ. Press. ROBINSON, P. H. (1984). Criminal law defenses. St. Paul, Minn, West. ROBINSON, P. H. (2005). Law Without Justice Why Criminal Law Doesnt Give People What They Deserve. New York, Oxford University Press. SAMAHA, J. (2014). Criminal law. SHUTE, S., & SIMESTER, A. P. (2002). Criminal law theory: doctrines of the general part. Oxford [u.a.], Oxford Univ. Press. SIMESTER, A. P., & SULLIVAN, G. R. (2004). Criminal law: theory and doctrine. Oxford, Hart SISTARE, C. T. (1989). Responsibility and criminal liability. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic. STATSKY, W. P. (2012). Essentials of torts. Clifton Park, NY, Delmar. TRAYNOR, R. J. (1965). The ways and meanings of defective products and strict liability. UNITED STATES. (1993). Assault Weapon Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990: hearing and markup before the Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, first session, on H.R. 3712, November 21, 1991. Washington, U.S. G.P.O. VANDALL, F. J. (1989). Strict liability: legal and economic analysis. New York [u.a.], Quorum Books. WERRO, F., & PALMER, V. V. (2003). The boundaries of strict liability in European tort law. Durham, N.C., Carolina Academic Press. WOODS, G. D. (2002). A history of criminal law in New South Wales: the Colonial period, 1788-1900. Annandale, NSW, Federation Press. ZALEHA KAMARUDDIN. (1988). Strict liability in criminal law: a comparative approach. Kuala Lumpur, Nurin Enterprise. ZEDNER, L., & ROBERTS, J. V. (2012). Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Essays in Honour of Andrew Ashworth. Oxford, OUP Oxford. Read More