The Criminal Liability of Kalmer, Rudbott, and Patchouli - Coursework Example

Name Tutor Course Date Criminal Law and Procedure Introduction Tangney is an electoral area of western Australian and any criminal offence committed in the area is determined using the criminal code of Western Australia1. According to section 2, an offence is considered as any act or omission which renders the person doing it punishable2. In the case study, a confrontation occurred during the elections debate for the candidates for Tangney seat. This ended in the death of Mr. Colbert who was a media advisor of a candidate named Rudbott. This is after a student named patchouli threw a teargas canister which hit him instead of Rudbott. The action of the student was due to protest over the educational policies of Rudbott. Mr. Kalmer who had started the physical fight was also injured but later went to hospital to seek treatment. Rudbott advised his media advisor not to go to hospital as it will be a sign of weaknesses. However the autopsy report indicated that Colbert could have survived had he sought treatment. The paper thus discusses the criminal liability of Kalmer, Rudbott and Patchouli. Criminal liability Rudbott Rudbott bears a criminal liability as he was the one who advised Colbert not to go to the hospital. This is despite the injuries that he had suffered on the head after being hit by the teargas canister. According to section 7(a), any person who makes an omission does the act that constitutes to the offence is an offender3. Rudbott failed to take his media advisor to hospital after he sustained head injuries and thus making him an offender. An offender is always liable for criminal prosecution4. Before the incident took place, Rudbott was engaged in a fight with his opponent. According to section 71 of the criminal code, fighting in public is a crime and it attracts a fine of up to $6,000 or a jail term of up to two years in prison5. This is a criminal liability that Rudbott also face due to his action. On the other hand, Rudbott is the one who provoked the fight by insulting his opponent by calling him economic girlish man. According to section 74(A) (1), using an offensive and threatening language in public amounts to a disorderly behavior in public which attracts a penalty of $ 6,0006. This is also an offense that Rudbott is criminally liable of due to his actions which also provoked the fight and hence causing the disorder. During the debate, the gathering went out of control and hence resulting to the chaos that was witnessed. According to section 75B(2), anyone who was involved in organizing a gathering that goes out of control is liable for a jail term of twelve months or a penalty of $ 12,0007. Rudbott was pat of the official of the debate which makes him criminally liable. It is also the duty of an individual to do certain acts for the purposes of preserving life if it is within their power. According to section 267, anyone who fails to act in such instances is responsible for the outcome on the health or life of the person8. This makes Rudbott criminally responsible for failing to take Mr. Colbert to hospital for treatment of his head injury. The criminal liabilities can result to a jail terms or a penalty depending on the nature of the offences. It is thus important to note that Rudbott is also liable to jail terms or fines due to the nature of his criminal liabilities. Depending on the decision of the court he may also be fined and jailed at the same time9. Patchouli She carries a greatest criminal liability as her actions are directly linked to the death of Mr. Colbert. Although she did not intend to kill Colbert, her actions led to his death and hence the criminal liability. According to section 26, a person is of sound mind when performing an action unless proven otherwise10. In the case of Western Australia v Evans, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused on the grounds of unsoundness of mind11. She threw the teargas canister when she was in her right state of mind which makes her fit to stand trial. Patchouli also illegally possessed the teargas canister and the firing gun which carries a criminal liability despite the intentions. According to section 68E, the access and possession of a weapon or dangerous instrument carries a criminal liability with the offender being subjected to a fine of $36,000 or five years imprisonment12. During the process of arrest, she knocked over one of the police officers who wanted to arrest her. According to section 222, this amounts to assault which also carries a criminal liability. On the other hand she tried to evade arrest by attempting to flee from the scene. It is a crime for one to evade lawful arrest13. According to section 233(1), anyone who tries to evade lawful arrest by fleeing is liable for a criminal offense14. This also indicates that she was acting in bad faith. Acting in bad faith on the other hand may have negative implications on the outcome of the criminal course15. Fleeing the scene of crime also indicates that the offender is aware of theory action and the consequences and hence the reason to flee16. Firing a teargas directly against an individual is prone to cause a bodily harm. This is also considered as a dangerous activity that may threaten the life or heath of an individual, section 267 considers it to be an offence and the person concerned carries a criminal liability17. Although Patchouli did not intend to kill Colbert, and she intended to fire the tear gas canister at Rudbott, her action led to unlawful death. Unlawful killing of an individual is considered to be a crime. However since it was not intentional, she is liable to manslaughter. According to section 280, manslaughter is the preferred charge for the killing that was not intended18. She therefore carries the criminal liability of manslaughter which carries a life sentence. In the case of The State of Western Australia V Wongawal, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of fourteen years19. It is thus important to note that the intention of Patchouli was not to kill but to cause some harm to Rudbott which did not occur. The intentions of an individual also play an important role in terms of deciding the criminal liability20. Kalmer The action of Kalmer also indicates that he carries some of the criminal responsibilities. This is also considering that he was the one who started the physical fight after his opponent used inappropriate words to describe him. It is also always important for the citizens to desist from violence at any cost. Kalmer assaulted his opponent causing bodily harm as his opponent was spotted with a black eye. According to section 317, assault that causes bodily harm carries a criminal offence which is punishable by a jail term of seven years21. In the case of The State of Western Australia V Kennedy, two offenders were found guilty of causing bodily harm to their victims after an assault and were ordered to a pay a maximum fine of $ 75,00022. On the other hand, he was involved in a fight with his opponent in public. Fighting in public is a crime. According to section 71, fighting in public has been outlawed and Kalmer is criminally liable for this offense23. On the other hand, the behavior of Kalmer resulted to public disorder. Causing public disorder is also a crime in Western Australia State. This is according to section 74A which prohibits such activities and it carries a fine of up to $6,00024. It also important to note that being a participant of the gathering he was supposed to ensure that the gathering was peaceful. However he failed to do that and is liable to criminal prosecution under section 75B and he risks facing a jail term or a penalty of $12,00025. The court may impose the fine and the jail term at the same time depending on the extent of the criminal liability incase damages to properties occurred. It is also important note that the Kalmer is not directly linked to the death of Mr. Colbert. This is because he did not have any contact with Mr. Colbert although he was responsible for starting the fight. Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that criminal liabilities are for the purposes of prosecuting the offenders. Before an offender is prosecuted, the criminal liability has to be established for the purposes of ensuring that offenders are able to answer for their charges. The criminal code plays an important role in terms of ensuring that the breech of law is controlled. On the other hand, it is evident that none of the offenders had planned to cause their actions except for patchouli who was armed with tear gas canisters. It is also important to note that the intention of an offender plays an important role in terms of determining the nature of the crime. It is also important to note that the individual has to be a sound mind which is a consideration when the case is being built. The actions of individuals in public can also lead to criminal liability. Fighting in public is one of the criminal offenses that individuals have to carry criminal liabilities. On the other hand, during a gathering those behind its organization of the gathering are also criminally liable for any disorder. It is also evident that negligence or acts of omission also leads to criminal liabilities. Works Cited Books Chan, Wing Cheong, Codification, Macaulay and the Indian Penal Code: The Legacies and Modern Challenges of Criminal Law Reform. Ashgate Publishing, 2011. Wright, David, Remedies in equity: the laws of Australia. Thomson Reuters, 2010. Shapland, Joanna, ed. Justice, Community Civil Society. Milton: Willan Publishers, 2013. Journals Mills, A. "Book review of M. Davies, AS Bell and PLG Brereton,“Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia”(8th edn, 2010)." Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 2011 (2011): 151. Richardson, Elizabeth,. "Diversion down under—Programs for offenders with mental illnesses in Australia." International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33.4 (2010): 249-257. Weatherburn, Don, "Briefing session: uses and abuses of crime statistics." (2011). Naylor, Bronwyn. "Criminal records and rehabilitation in Australia." European Journal of Probation 3.1 (2011). Ghosh Keith, Kenneth. "Codification, Macaulay and the Indian Penal Code: the legacies and modern challenges of criminal law reform." Commonwealth Law Bulletin 38.1 (2012): 190-193. Acts and Cases Criminal Code Act compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 2. Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 7(a). Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 71. Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 74(A) (1). Criminal Code Act compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 75B(2). Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 267. Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 26. Western Australia v Evans [No 2] [2012] WASC 366 (9 October 2012). Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 68E. Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 222. Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 267. Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 233(1). Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 280. The State of Western Australia V Wongawal [2010] WASC 324 (8 November 2010). Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 317. The State of Western Australia V Kennedy [2009] WACIC 20 (31 March 2009). Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 71. Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 74A. Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) s 75B. Read More