Criminal Law and Actions of Oscar - Assignment Example

Running Head: CRIMINAL LAW Criminal Law [Name Of Student] [Name Of Institution] Introduction The conventional starting point for the study of any case in criminal law is the set of elements that make up the criminal offence, also known as actus reus. This is also known as the prohibited or forbidden conduct but a more accurate description would be the external factors related to the offence. The next main thing is the mens rea which is usually referred to as the mental factor but a more suitable description is the fault element of the offence. In any criminal case, it is compulsory to prove that the defendant has committed an acts reus in the presence of a mens rea (Martin, Storey, 2010). Actus reus refers to a guilty act whereas mens rea means somebody’s guilty state of mind. In this paper I shall investigate the potential liability of Oscar for causing Damian’s death in the given case, including any defences. For this purpose, I shall briefly define the possible offences and then discuss each. The possible offences include murder, homicide and involuntary manslaughter. The English law differentiates between the offence based on the levels of fault with reference to the mens rea. When compared, manslaughter is an offence of lesser gravity than murder; the difference mainly lying in the intention (Martin, Storey, 2010). Furthermore, manslaughter can be both voluntary and involuntary. In the former the defendant kills with the intention to do so or cause severe harm but there may be extenuating conditions which diminish his fault. Discussion Murder is the intentional killing of someone with pre-decided notion of causing severe harm if not death. Damian and Oscar were friends. Damian was considerate enough to take Oscar out knowing that he was depressed and to help him get out of his blues. Oscar knew this and they were having a good time. Oscar did not have any intention of murdering Damian. Since the mens rea is missing his action which resulted in Damian’s death cannot be labeled as murder. Considering voluntary manslaughter which is the killing of a person where the offender had no previous intention to kill and the killing occurred due to the heat of the moment, under a set of conditions which would result in a normal person to be mentally disturbed. When Damain was confronted by Oscar at the White Hart, Oscar already was in a disturbed state of mind as he had overheard the conversation between Damian and Ian. Oscar already suspected Damian of having association with Phobe, who has caused Oscar immense pain and trouble as ex-partner. In an angry emotional state, he confronts Damian about his association which results in a scuffle during which Oscar stabs Damian with a pocket knife. The intention was clearly to hurt Damian, though not to kill him. The state of mind of Oscar is however, a debatable topic as before coming out with Damian too, he was depressed and after overhearing the conversation he was further angry. Provocation requires investigating the reasons why Oscar killed Damian. An adequate or a reasonable provocation sets apart a voluntary manslaughter from a murder. In this case, provocation cannot be said to be as adequate as it led Oscar to lose control over himself. Since Oscar’s conduct was freely willed and voluntary, he has to face liability of his actions. Consider involuntary manslaughter where the person accused did not really intend to cause serious harm to the other individual but the gross-negligence or recklessness of his act cannot be ignored either (Martin, Storey, 2010). In such a scenario, recklessness is described as a blatant disregard for the impending danger in a given state of affairs. Involuntary manslaughter is also one where a person causes harm to another as a mere reflex action which was beyond his control. In this regard, a famous example is that of Hill v Baxter [1958] All ER 193 when after being stung by bees, the person lost control of his car and caused harm to nearby people (Martin, Storey, 2010). Such an action can be labeled as involuntary where there is absolutely no intent to harm, yet it occurs. In our given case, Oscar’s action cannot be justified under involuntary manslaughter as he confronted Damian in an angry state of mind, probably already convinced of Damian’s association with Phobe. Oscar did not intend to kill Damian yet he had intent of harm and so his action cannot be regarded as involuntary. An example is of dropping a brick for the reason of discarding it. Now if this brick hits someone on the head and causes death of that person, the individual throwing the brick will not be charged as he did not have any mens rea which is necessary fro murder (Martin, Storey, 2010). However, if before throwing the brick, the person is aware that it might hurt someone and yet he does it then it is categorized as recklessness. This is also known as constructive manslaughter. If a new intervening act is detected then causation in law requires the utility of a test, some of which include checking if the defendant was the substantial and operating cause (Smith test), if the defendant’s action added immensely (Pagett test) and test from Kimsey to check if there was more than a trifling connection. In our case, Damian succumbed to death due to the wounds getting infection. The infection was not given by Oscar but Oscar’s action of stabbing Damian with his pocket knife resulted in the wounds in the first place. Hence Oscar’s action contributed greatly. The likely defenses include insanity, intoxication and automatism. Insanity can be used as a defense when while the act was being committed which later formed the offence, the defendant was not able to identify the extent or gravity of his act due to any mental illness or state. An insane person is not held accountable fro his conduct if he is unable to differentiate and set apart his actions (Martin, Storey, 2010). This is for the simple reason that in order to convict a willful intent is required. An insane person is not capable of forming any such intent. Since insanity is completely ruled out in our case, the next defense to plead is automatism. The responsibility to prove automatism rests solely on the defendant. This also results in complete acquittal and therefore the law does not entertain such pleas except in very special cases. Automatism is actually when the defendant is unable to control his muscles; like in a sudden attack of epilepsy. Under such circumstances he/she is not held guilty. In the given scenario, even automatism is ruled out as a defense as Oscar had control over his body movements as he participated in the fight with Damian. In order to constitute any provocation, it is essential to have an unexpected and sudden control loss which is usually the outcome of someone’s action or saying something but even then the accused person will have the potential to cause harm which could result in the death of the other person. (Martin, Storey, 2010) Oscar was depressed before coming out with Damian and his action caused enough harm to lead to Damian’s death. Therefore, there is not enough loss of control which could justify automatism. This is similar to the Canadian case of Bert Thomas Stone v R (1999). Likewise, it is likely to have a loss of control when one uses alcohol or drugs intentionally so automatism is ruled out unless it has resulted in a more severe illness such as delirium tremens (Martin, Storey, 2010). The fact that both friends had been going around bars and enjoying themselves projects the possibility that both had consumed alcohol. But since loss of control is predictable, the M’naghten principles hold good as an internal reason. Specific intent comes under mens rea where obviously in this case rules of intoxication will be applicable. Conclusion In our case Oscar is guilty of manslaughter as the stab wound from the pocket knife was the main setting under which the cause of death operated combined by the infections that had spread in the wounds (action of Oscar). As most cases of heat of the moment involve to some degree the intent to harm or kill, as in a voluntary manslaughter. In this case though there was not a specific intention to kill Damian, nevertheless, Oscar’s action led to Damian’s death. The verdict depends on the jurisdiction whether to classify it as second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. References Martin, Jacqueline; Storey, Tony (2010): Unlocking Criminal Law second edition. Read More