Criminal Law

Introduction

In this scenario, the offense of slaying will be focused upon. The jury must look into whether Al had the needed actus reus and work forces rea present whilst transporting out his act. They must both ‘coincide ‘ for there to be an offense. It should so be considered whether he had an purpose nowadays at the clip of the act. However, if there is a sufficient interruption in the concatenation of causing, it may alleviate Al of any liability for slaying. It must be established what is meant by slaying which, can be described as ‘unlawful maliciousness with aforethought ‘ [ 1 ] . This is the violent death of another with a premeditated program. Harmonizing to LCJ Coke slaying is ‘…When a adult male of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm… ‘ [ 2 ] an ‘unlawful killing ‘ expressions at a slaying carried out merely for retribution instead than one which, may be in self defense mechanism. Therefore, the inquiry is whether Al had a malicious purpose. First, the focal point should lie on the actus reus and whether it is applies to this state of affairs. The actus reus is the ‘external component ‘ which contributes to a individual perpetrating a offense. ‘It is a cardinal pre-condition of condemnable liability that the actus reus of a offense should necessitate human action and be committed voluntarily. ‘ [ 3 ] The actus reus of slaying is ‘the improper violent death of a human being. ‘ It can be argued that where Al puts the gasoline around the hay and throws the lit newspaper into the stallss is an act. Furthermore, the work forces rea component of slaying must be considered to see what province of head the suspect was in. This is seen to be the ‘internal component ‘ known as the suspect ‘s ‘guilty head ‘ . The work forces rea demand for slaying is an ‘intention to kill or intention to do dangerous bodily injury ‘ . Purpose can be defined as: ‘The most blameworthy signifier of culpability. A province of personal businesss which the party “ intending ” does more than simply contemplate. ‘ [ 4 ]

Drumhead

There must be a differentiation made between direct and oblique purpose. Direct purpose, is where the suspect has the ‘desire ‘ to perpetrate an offense. It can be seen that Al ‘s purpose can be classed as an oblique purpose where there is a deficiency of ‘desire ‘ nowadays. This is illustrated by the instance of R v Mohan [ 5 ] by James LJ as ‘ a determination to convey about, in so far as it lies within the Accused ‘s power… no affair whether the accused desired that effect of his act or non ‘ . [ 6 ] If it can be proved that Al intended to kill or do dangerous bodily injury, merely so can he be held apt. It may be argued that although Al, pictures Barry in infirmary, this does non intend that he will be found guilty, merely because he had guilty ideas. However, these ideas can be adequate to separate that he had the purpose to do injury to Barry and could fulfill as the dangerous bodily harm standards of the work forces rea. When looking at purpose, it is of import that the suspect has contemplated that an hurt or decease will happen. ‘This is set under subdivision 8 of the Criminal Justice Act [ 7 ] which will be an of import counsel to the jury when make up one’s minding upon the fact of a peculiar instance which, has led to a more subjective attack. ‘ [ 8 ] The instance of Hyam v DPP [ 9 ] went on to set up: ‘if a adult male, in full cognition of the danger involved and without lawful alibi does that which exposes a victim to the hazard of the likely dangerous bodily injury or death… the culprit of the offense is guilty of murder… ‘ [ 10 ] Therefore, even where a individual does non mean the injury as identified in R V Cunningham [ 11 ] , if they can see the chance of it happening they can still be apt for the purpose. It is questionable whether a sensible individual would hold imagined there to be a hazard along with puting the stallss on fire. A farther illustration of purpose can be seen in the instance of R v Nedrick [ 12 ] this directed juries to see two inquiries to see whether the accused could be held apt. It was besides expressed in this instance that ‘… they might happen it easier to deduce that he intended to kill or make serious injury, even though he may non hold had any desire to accomplish the consequence. ‘ [ 13 ] The instance of R v Woolin [ 14 ] which is the modern twenty-four hours authorization besides supports the trial set out in Nedrick, the lone difference being that in Woolin the word ‘find ‘ replaces ‘infer ‘ . There is the possibility that Wilf ‘s decease is a consequence of transferred maliciousness. This is whereby ‘Defendant ‘s work forces rea for one offense causes the actus reus of the same offense but either erroneously or by chance causes an unintended consequence… ‘ [ 15 ] In the instance of R v Latimer [ 16 ] Lord Coleridge CJ established that where a individual commits an offense and ‘…in trying to transport it out, injures a 3rd individual, is guilty of what the jurisprudence deems maliciousness against the individual injured. ‘ [ 17 ] It can be argued that the maliciousness is movable to Wilf ‘s decease as Al had the work forces rea to wound Barry and ends up killing Wilf. The country of Causation is a cardinal component and should besides be investigated when finding the liability of the accused. It will be left to the jury to make up one’s mind upon the finding of fact depending upon the facts that they are presented with. The first country of causing which will be looked at is that of factual causing which, focuses on the ‘but for ‘ trial to see ‘if but for the suspect ‘s act the consequence would non hold occurred. ‘ [ 18 ] The instance of R v White [ 19 ] expressions at this thought that if the suspect ‘s act is non the existent cause of the decease so they can non be held apt but may nevertheless be guilty of an attempted offense. The instance of R v Dalloway [ 20 ] focal points on a state of affairs where the suspect ‘s act did non lend to the ensuing decease. Therefore it could be argued that as Wilf ‘s decease was due to the emphysema caused by Wilf working in a coal mine most of his life, Al may reason that he should non be apt for slaying. On the other manus, a possible counter statement is ‘but for ‘ Al ‘s actions, it would non hold resulted in puting off Wilf ‘s emphysema. Legal causing must besides be investigated in order to see liability. This looks at whether a Novus Actus Interveniens has occurred which, will interrupt the concatenation of causing. Whilst concentrating on legal causing, it must be established that the Act of the guilty party ‘must contribute to the terminal consequence to a important extent ‘ [ 21 ] . The suspect may be found apt even where there is seen to be an intervening act. The instance of R v Smith [ 22 ] supports this position by saying: ‘Only if it can be said that the original wounding is the scene in which another cause operates can it be said that decease does non ensue from the lesion. ‘ [ 23 ] The instances of R v Malcherek, R v Steel [ 24 ] expression at whereby the act of the suspect does non hold to be the exclusive cause of the decease and provinces that ‘…the fact that the victim has died, despite or because of medical intervention for the initial hurt given by careful skilled medical practicians, will non acquit the original assailant… ‘ [ 25 ] However, arguably if established that the medical intercession was carried out in such a negligent mode, merely so can at that place be a interruption in the concatenation of causing as illustrated by the instance of R v Jordan [ 26 ] which, would alleviate the accused of the liability.

Decision

If we apply this to the state of affairs associating to where the paramedics failed to supply Wilf with O every bit good as his hospitalization, where he is given a 50 % faulty O cylinder, it could be argued by Al that this is negligent and a breach of their responsibility towards a patient, as they should hold checked the cylinder before giving it to Wilf. However, as the initial hurt is the emphysema, which has resulted from Al ‘s actions it will keep him apt for the decease of Wilf, even though there has been an intervening act. There is besides the statement of ‘take your victim as you find them ‘ as illustrated by the instance of R v Hayward [ 27 ] where a victim had a medical status which resulted in her decease due to menaces made, ended up ensuing in manslaughter. [ 28 ] The instance of R v Blaue [ 29 ] takes this position that the suspect can still be apt even where a interruption in causing occurs due to the demand for medical attending. If the victim is susceptible to an unwellness as Wilf is, so this is portion of their wellness hence, Al must take Wilf to hold an unwellness and his act has triggered it off. In decision, it is a reasonably debateable country for one to see although it could good be that Al is found guilty of the slaying of Wilf, through transferred maliciousness and will hence be held apt. There is besides the fact that as his act was a significant cause of the concluding consequence of decease he can non entirely trust on a interruption in the concatenation of causing by the paramedics or the infirmary. However, it might good be that on entreaty he may have a decreased sentence of nonvoluntary manslaughter as it may be taken into consideration, that the half empty O cylinder was non down to Al but the infirmary.