Problem Question Homicide PDF

Preview

Summary

Problem Question Mary and David have been best friends for years. However, today they are both very upset because they have discovered that their partners have been having an affair with each other for the past twelve months. David goes to confront his partner Cloe. Cloe does not deny the affair, an...

Description

Problem Question 1. Mary and David have been best friends for years. However, today they are both very upset because they have discovered that their partners have been having an affair with each other for the past twelve months.

David goes to confront his partner Cloe. Cloe does not deny the affair, and even blames it on David for working long hours and never having time for her. Cloe also tells David that he has become impossible to live with since he began suffering with depression. David is overcome with hurt and anger, he grabs a cricket bat from the cupboard, and hits Cloe with it. Cloe dies immediately.

Mary also decides to confront her partner Paul. Upon seeing him, Mary shouts at Paul and hits him on the chest. Paul has been suffering from a heart condition for some time, and owing to the shock of this violence he has a heart attack and dies.

Discuss any potential criminal liability. Answer: David The legal issues raised by this question appear to be murder and manslaughter. The first potential criminal event arises where David hit Cloe with a cricket bat and Cloe dies. David potentially killing Cloe and that can amount to murder. In order to establish the criminal liability of David, we will examine the actus reus and mens rea of murder. Actus Reus The actus reus of murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace. It is clear that Cloe is a human being, and it is not in war time. There was novus actus interventions as the significant cause of death is the hit of cricket bat. Hence, we can say that David had fulfilled the actus reus. Mens Rea The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought. It is uncertain with the intention of David. However, a reasonable would foresee the circumstances of hitting someone with a cricket bat. Grievous bodily harm and murder could be committed with the cricket bat. We can assume that the blow of cricket bat can be assumed as intention to cause GBH or murder. It will be irrelevant for David to foresee death. Thus, we can conclude that he fulfilled the mens rea of murder. Defence David can consider the partial defence of diminished responsibility and loss of control. a) Loss of control

David has to fulfil the 3 tests that is laid down in s54(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009. There must be a loss of self-control which has qualifying trigger and a person of D’s age and sex might have acted in the same way. It is clear that David has a loss of control as he is suffering from depression and the insult of David’s characteristic. In R v Clinton, sexual infidelity cannot amount to a qualifying trigger but only potential trigger. However, given that David suffered from depression and was insulted on his characteristic. Hence, all the facts could amount to qualifying trigger. The next test would be whether a reasonable person would act this way. Depression does not vitiate the general capacity of David as the question did not indicate that David might suffered from severe depression. A reasonable person in David’s situation will not react this way. The only chance for David to succeed with this defence if David’s depression is taken into account. b) Diminished responsibility Diminished responsibility is set out in S2 of Homicide Act 1957. David will have to fulfil the tests in order to rely on this defence. He has to show that an abnormality of mental functioning which arises from a recognised medical condition so as to substantially impair his ability to understand the nature of her conduct, form a rational judgment and exercise selfcontrol and which provides an explanation for his acts/omissions. David’s depression can be considered as an abnormality of mental function which arises from a recognised medical condition. However, the level of depression is uncertain as a serious depression could have substantially impair his ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgment and exercise self-control. In R v Dietschmann, the court stated that depression can be the cause of mental impairment which would explain the defendant’s act. However, the level of depression in this question is uncertain. Hence, David will have to show he suffered from severe depression. Conclusion In short, it is likely that David will be liable for murder as he fulfilled the actus reus and mens rea of murder without a partial or general defence. He will be liable of voluntary manslaughter if he can show his level of depression to rely on the defence of loss of control or diminished responsibility.

Mary The legal issues here is murder, manslaughter and causation. The potential criminal event arises when Mary shouts at Paul and hits him on the chest which caused him to suffer from heart attack and die. The potential criminal offence is murder when Mary’s action caused the death of Paul. We will examine the actus reus and mens rea of murder to establish the criminal liability of Mary. Actus Reus The actus reus of murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace. The element of human being is satisfied as Paul is a human being. We can conclude that Mary’s action caused the heart attack of Paul as no other event intervened and break the

chain of causation. Punching and shouting at Paul which triggered the heart attack can amount to unlawful killing. Hence, Mary fulfilled the actus reus of murder. Mens Rea The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought. The question did not indicate that Mary has the intention to cause GBH or death of Paul. We will not be able to hold Mary liable for murder. Therefore, we will substitute the offence of murder with unlawful act manslaughter. The Element of Unlawful Act Manslaughter Unlawful act manslaughter is defined as a person commits a criminal act in dangerous situation and this cause the death of victim. It is indeed that punching some can amount to battery or actual bodily harm which can amount to unlawful act. The act can consider as dangerous because a reasonable person would foresee the risk of punching and shouting at someone who suffered from a heart attack. This principle was laid down in R v Watson a reasonable person could foresee the harm as the victim is old and frail. It is satisfied that her action caused the death of Paul without any event intervened and break the causation. Defence Mary cannot consider any defence. Partial defence is only available for murder and she does not fall into any general defence. Conclusion In conclusion, Mary likely to be convicted with unlawful manslaughter as she has fulfilled the necessary element for unlawful act manslaughter....