Practical - Sample answer to exam question PDF

Preview

Summary

Sample answer to exam question...

Description

Murder Death Victor is dead, which is a necessary element of murder. Voluntary Act The voluntary act is Andrew’s punch. It was clearly conscious and willed (Ryan). Factual Causation The punch must have been a ‘but for’ cause of Victor’s death. It clearly was, since, but for the punch, Victor would not have died. Legal Causation It is necessary that the voluntary act was the substantial and operating cause of Victor’s death (Hallett). Andrew may argue that there were events that broke the chain of causation. First, as to Victor’s ‘God’ statement or decision, is unlikely to break the chain of causation, because Andrew must take his victim’s as he finds them (Blaue). This means that Victor’s spiritual decisions, will not break the chain of causation. Second, the hospital’s decision to turn off the life support, may have broken the chain of causation. Whilst negligent medical work will not break the chain of causation unless the original wound becomes ‘merely part of the history’ of the ultimate cause of death (Evans & Gardiner), there’s no evidence that Victor would have died, without the life support being turned off. Accordingly, it is probable that the life support decision broke the chain of causation. Mens rea To prove murder, Andrew must have intended to kill Victor or to cause him really serious injury. Or alternatively, been reckless as to the probability of either of those outcomes (Crabbe). It is clear, that Andrew did not intend to kill or cause really serious injury, or indeed even have foreseen the probability of death. However it is possible that, at the time of the punch, he (actually) foresaw the probability of causing Victor really serious injury. If that is so, the mens rea for murder satisfied. Manslaughter Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter. Unlawful – Andrew’s punch is clearly unlawful, that is, a breach of the criminal law. It may constitute, inter alia, a common assault. There is no defence that he may rely upon. Dangerousness – it is necessary that Andrew’s punch would have created, in the mind of a reasonable person, who had knowledge of the circumstances, an appreciable risk of serious injury (Wilson). Particularly as the punch was to the head. Whilst this may depend upon Andrew and Victor’s relative body sizes, and any physical or martial arts training that Andrew had had, it is likely, that a jury will find that there was an objective appreciable risk of serious injury. It is likely that, if not reckless, Andrew will be guilty of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter....