English Criminal Law - Coursework Example

?Introduction This paper examines three questions that relate to criminal law. In each of the questions, there is an analysis of the main issues laidout in the requirements. This is followed by an evaluation of the relevant laws and cases that define the framework of the issues raised in English law. This is followed by a thorough analysis of the facts in relation to the laws and cases identified. This leads to a conclusion on what the parties are entitled to, based on the circumstances at hand. Question 1 Issue In this case, Oscar enter's Peter's circus tent and releases an animal that he believes is being ill-treated. In the process, he releases a lion and a tiger. The lion then proceeds to kill a person nearby. The issue is whether the entry release of the dangerous animals and the subsequent killing renders Oscar liable for murder or not. In examining the murder, it is essential to evaluate if it leads to a liability of involuntary manslaughter or not. Rules In involuntary manslaughter, the actus reus is an unlawful and dangerous act. In R V Slingsby (1995), a woman died when a man conducted dangerous sexual acts on her. Although the defendant argued that it was an ordinary sexual act that had gone out of scope, it was held that he was guilty because the act was dangerous and unlawful. In R V Church (1965), the term 'dangerous' was interpreted to mean that it exposes another person to a risk of some harm. Based on this, if such an act is conducted, a person will be guilty of committing involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea of involuntary manslaughter is to commit an act that is obvious to every reasonable person as a dangerous act. In spite of this obvious indication, the defendant proceeded to commit that act. In DPP V Newbury and Jones (1976), the defendants were two teenage boys. They threw a piece of stone from a bridge into a passing train. This hit and killed a guard who was sitting in the driver's compartment. It was held that they had committed involuntary manslaughter because it was obvious to them as reasonable people that they undertook a dangerous act when they foresaw the consequences of their actions. Due to the nature of involuntary manslaughter, the most likely defence is diminished responsibility under section 2 of Homicide Act, 1957. This means that the defendant was suffering from an abnormal mind which caused him to fail to exercise willpower and committed such acts (R V Byrne 1960). Also, a person with a substantially impaired mental responsibility could be plead on the grounds of the impairment (R V Lloyd 1967). Application In this case, Oscar decides to go to the premises of Peter's circus. He did this and released the dangerous animals because he believed they were being ill-treated. In releasing the animals to prevent them from being 'ill-treated', he failed to realize that he was releasing them into a populated area where the animals could cause havoc to human beings. Releasing a lion and tiger was dangerous. Also, it is apparent that he did not seek the consent of Peter who is licensed to keep the animals under lock and key as a circus operator. This constitutes a trespass under Common Law and makes the act illegal. It should have been obvious to Oscar that an ill-treated lion or tiger was much better caged than released into the society. This is because if the caged lion or tiger is released in an urban centre, it would cause carnage and kill a lot of people. On the balance of probabilities, it should have occurred to him that releasing the animals could cost human lives. However, he did not take time to reconsider that. This makes it a valid mens rea for the commission of involuntary manslaughter. Conclusion In conclusion, Oscar committed the actus reus of unlawfully entering the premises of Peter and releasing dangerous animals that killed a human being. Also, he was negligent and did not think much about his actions. As such, he is guilty of manslaughter. Due to the circumstances, his only credible defence is to plead on the grounds of diminished responsibility under the Homicide Act 1957. This is because the action is quite extreme and it could be logical to plead on the grounds of abnormality of mind or impaired mental responsibility. Question 2 Issue In this case, Fred and Rudy attempt to promote their anti-war campaign by causing damage to a military facility. When they were arrested by the police, they pleaded that they were protecting a nearby property which could be at risk in the event of a war. The issue is whether they are liable for causing criminal damage or not. Rules The Criminal Damage Act 1971 states that the actus reus of criminal damage is to cause physical harm, impairment or destruction that requires expenses or more than minimal effort to rectify. In Hardman V Chief Constable of Avon (1986), the defendant drew silhouettes on a pavement with water soluble paints. In normal circumstances, the paints would have worn off in a few days. However, because an expense was incurred in cleaning the paint, it was held that Hardman was liable for charges under the Criminal Damage Act. In A V R (1978), a juvenile was charged for causing criminal damage to a property. This shows that the Act is applicable even to minors. In R V G and another (2003), the mens rea of criminal damage to property was identified to be intending or being subjectively reckless as to cause the damage of a property. There are two defences under the Act. The first is that the person committed an act on the property that the owner would have consented to. The second is that the damage was done to protect property belonging to the defendant or another where there is an immediate need for protection under the prevailing circumstances. This means that there must be a pressing and immediate need to cause the damage in order to protect the property in question. Application In the case at hand, Fred and Rudy clearly caused the damage to the military facility's walls with the hope of furthering their quest for peace. Cutting the holes in the perimeter fence of the military establishment constitutes the actus reus. This is because it is an act that caused direct damage to the building. The mens rea is the intention and subjective decision to destroy a military facility in their belief that it would prevent war and promote peace. The defence that they were protecting nearby properties from damage during war might sound a little convincing but it cannot constitute a defence in law. This is because the Criminal Damage Act states that the threat from which they are protecting a property must be on-going and immediate. It can be inferred that at the time they created the hole in the building, there was no war in the area. As such, they had no business doing that to 'save' the adjoining building. Even if there was a war, there is no convincing case that creating the hole in the building will protect the nearby civilian establishment from attack. Conclusion The conspiracy to create a hole in the wall and the act of creating the hole constitutes the mens rea and actus reus of criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Their defence of protecting a nearby property is not valid since there was no immediate threat to the property during the time they created the hole in the military establishment's wall. Question 3 Issue In this case, N goes to a party, gets drunk and attempts to throw a glass of beer at his former girlfriend. This fails and the beer pours over P, N's former girlfriend's new boyfriend. P reacts by using harsh words against N. In anger, N decides to hit P but he fell and broke a coffee table. He got up and picked the leg of the table and hit the head of P. P becomes unconscious and is rushed to the hospital. In the hospital, he is given inappropriate medical treatment and he dies. The issues are: 1. Whether N is guilty of murder or not. 2. An assessment of the extent to which the medical facility's mistake affects N's position in relation to murder. 3. An examination of the role of provocation in the assault that led to P's death. 4. The position of mistakes and voluntary intoxication. Rules In voluntary manslaughter or murder cases, the actus reus is a direct assault. In most cases, the assault must lead to the death of the victim within a year and one day (this was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and Day Rule) of 1996). In R V White (1910), it was held that in examining the actus reus of a manslaughter case, there should be a clear unbroken casual link between the defendant and the victim in two areas. The first is the 'cause in fact' which involves the 'but for' test. In this situation, it will be decided if the death would have occurred if the defendant or accused person had not undertaken the act in question. The second element is the cause in law which examines the remoteness in the liability. In this quest, an intervening act of a third party could affect the involvement of the accused person. In R V Cheshire (1991), it was identified that a significant contribution made by a third party can affect the implication of the defendant. In R V Moloney (1985), it was ruled that the mens rea of voluntary manslaughter is the malice afterthought which is made up of two elements: 1. Intention to kill (express malice) 2. Intention to cause serious injury (implied malice). In R V Williams (1987) it was held that a mistake could be a defence and the defendant will not be liable for forming the mens rea as long as it is honest and reasonable. However, the plea of a voluntarily intoxicated person for a mistake was rejected in R V O'Grady (1987). The Homicide Act 1957 (section 3) allows for the use of provocation as a defence if certain elements are satisfied. There is the subjective element which implies that as a result of what was said or done, the defendant lost his self control in a 'sudden and temporal' manner. There is also the objective test which attempts to identify what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances. Application In this case, N made a mistake by pouring beer on P. The beer was intended to be poured on O, his former girlfriend. This shows that there was a mistake although he is guilty of provoking P, through the commission of the actus reus, he did not form the mens rea. However, voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defence in such a situation. This means that he is guilty for beginning the whole situation that led to the complications. On the other hand, the insults of P directed at N after he poured the drink on him were provocative. As such, N tried to hit P, missed and fell. This was clearly embarrassing and it is quite logical that on the subjective and objective level, he was provoked after the fall. As such, he hit P out of impulse. N's act of hitting P with the table's leg was an actus reus that caused the death of P. This can be proven in fact because if he had not hit him, he would not have gone to the hospital and received the inappropriate medication that led to his death. As such, the actus reus makes N liable for the murder in fact. On the other hand, the mens rea is not very clear. Although it is apparent that N intended to cause serious injury to P, it is not clear that he intended to kill him expressly. As such, he could get some clemency in that sense. Additionally, the hospital's failure to administer the right medication can be significantly contributive to the death. However, it is quite remote and since N caused the injury in fact, he will bear the greater brunt of the criminal liability. If O had put hallucinogenic substances in N's drink, he would not have been guilty of forming the mens rea (R V Sheehan 1975). Although he would have been guilty of undertaking the acts, he would have been free of accusations for forming the motive. Conclusion In conclusion, N started the whole situation but through a mistake. This led to some degree of provocation which caused N to commit a serious assault on P which led to his death. N is guilty of all the acts but in terms of the motives, they are diminished to a degree by the motive which was affected by the mistake, provocation and the involvement of the hospital's error. Although these will reduce the effects of his act in a legal sense, they will not absolve him of all his legal liabilities in relation to voluntary manslaughter. Read More