• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

International Law

Extracts from this document...


QUESTION A & B are two homosexuals who have lived together for a number of years. Also living with them is C, who, while aged 30 is mentally abnormal and has a mental age of 10. A and B have cared for C for 2 years since C's remaining parent, an old friend of theirs, died. C cannot look after himself very well and occasionally goes through periods of deep depression. One day, A thinking that C might learn how to bake a cake, shows C how to mix ingredients and use the gas oven. He then goes to the shops to buy some decorations "to surprise B". When A gets back he finds C lying unconscious on the kitchen floor. There is a strong smell of gas. A rushes out to a telephone box to ring B. Meanwhile B arrives home and from smelling the gas and seeing the state of C, thinks that C had committed suicide. Fearing for his legal safety he hides C in a cupboard where C suffocates to death. Advice A and B. SUGGESTED SOLUTION A & B are advised that the state acting under prerogative via the Crown Prosecution Service will seek to juxtapose their actions with the existing scope of the law. ...read more.


Here Lord Diplock submits that if B's actions are directly related to A's actus reus then the chain is not broken. Factually B's actions are congruently attributable to A's omission. Thus it is submitted that A is still legally and factually the cause of death. The prosecution will then wish to establish a conviction of murder. To do so they will need to prove an intention to kill or cause grevious bodily harm. This can be proven via a direct intent or an inferred intent. A direct intent follows the Moloney direction whereby A must forsee the probability of C's death or grevious bodily harm upon him to be little short of overwhelming. This intention must be concurrent with the actus reus thus is judged at the time of the omission, Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Using the Moloney direction as specified it is unlikely A would forsee the consequence on the standard required. Looking at inferred intention along the Nedrick / Wollin test it is argued that it to will not be able to be proven since it is unlikely A realized the consequence to be virtually certain (baring any unforeseen circumstances). Thus murder cannot be made out on A's account. ...read more.


Further there can be no intention for murder since B in believing C was dead cannot forsee the probablility of death / GBH to someone who has already died; much less on a standard of little short of overwhelming R v Moloney. Furthermore the implied intention found in the Nedrick / Woollin direction too will not stick since its improbable B would forsee virtually certainly that C would die. In the alternative a verdict of involuntary manslaughter will be sought. Here constructive manslaughter is most congruent to the facts. First there is an unlawful positive act in the act of placing C in the cupboard R v Larkin. It is unlawful being a crime under battery, R v Armstrong. This act is unlawfully dangerous since it risks asphuxia, R v Church. The objective standard this is satisfied. This act was the curse of the fatality as on the facts he suffocated. Following DPP v Newsbury it is submitted that B did intend the unlawful act of placing him in the cupboard. Thus constructive manslaughter is satisfied. It is submitted that there will be a verdict of manslaughter on a charge of homicide rendering a maximum life sentence. 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    It was a shock for referees to be ever found liable for injuries that were caused on a pitch as in the Vowles case. However on a day to day basis for example if a school supervisor was to allow two pupils to do something they shouldn't, it is likely

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    It is significant to identify the margin between intention and recklessness not only to decide the degree of guilt of the offender for sentencing reasons, but also to establish in many cases whether the offender is accountable to conviction where the offence charged is one, which necessitate intention to be verified.


    neighbour disputes - and there is nothing so difficult as neighbour disputes; the usually escalate out of all proportion. It is important that you are fully aware of the factors that will influence the court in deciding whether any particular events constitute a nuisance in the particular circumstances and also

  2. British Law in Health and Social Care

    (Jokinen, 2009) A precedence of common law is set down by Lord Atkins through the Donoghue vs. Stevenson is duty of care. Duty of Care In English law an individual is owed a duty of care by another, to ensure that they do not suffer unreasonable harm or loss.

  1. Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter

    Many people argue that this does not really conform with current homicide laws but we live in a compassionate society and so far no amendments have been made. The House Of Lords Select Committee recommended replacing intent to kill or cause GBH with intent to cause death or intent to

  2. tort law

    the greater the precautions that the defendant will be required to take. - How practical were these precautions? - What is the social importance of the defendant activity? The minimum standard of care to be achieved by the reasonable person is objective.

  1. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    However, his employer can advocates that Titus was just doing what is right and necessary as a fireman would do in such emergence circumstance. Moreover the opened oil can was unforeseeable, and the can would ignite fire sooner or later regardless the action of Titus because it was opened.

  2. Tort law assignment. Brian fell against the standard of care a reasonable man would ...

    The House of Lords laid down strict guidelines for when this could apply: If there was a special relationship between the two partes, based on the defendants skill and judgement and the reliance placed upon it. The defendant (advisor) must posses a special skill relating to the type of advice given and must have realise that the claimant (advisee)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work