CRIMINAL LAW QUESTION - Essay Example

e case of Southwark LB v Williams ([1971] 2 All ER 175), the courts take a very narrow approach to the defence of necessity on policy grounds to prevent floodgate justification defences in theft prosecutions. Alternatively, the fact that Thomas bought the tickets and went to the Rugby game will also potentially give rise to the offence of theft under section 15A of the Theft Act for dishonestly holding onto money belonging to another. It further constitutes fraud in obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deceit (Fraud Act 2006).

With regard to Cecilia and Jupe’s liability for Louisa’s death, they could potentially be liable for murder or manslaughter under the law of homicide. The classic definition of murder under English Law was propounded by Sir Edward Coke, asserting the two stage definition requiring actus reus and mens rea. If we consider actus reus, it must be established that Cecilia and/or Jupe committed an unlawful act which caused Louisa’s death. Both factual and legal causation of death must be established.

The factual test applicable is the “but for” principle established in the case of R v White ([1910] 2 KB 124). Cecilia and/or Jupe will be criminally liable if his conduct was the factual cause of Louisa’s death and the consequence of death would not have happened “but for” Simon’s conduct. If we apply the “but for” test to the current situation, Louisa would not have been in hospital with severe injuries and loss of blood if had not been for Jupe falling into her as a result of Cecilia pushing him, therefore under the “but for test”, it is more than likely that their conduct will have satisfied the requirement of factual cause of death.

However, it is also evident from the facts that the medical staff at the hospital failed to diagnose her brain haemorrhage and administer appropriate treatment. As a result, Louisa died, which raises the issue as to whether Jupe’s action was in fact the legal cause of death or whether