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

Q, believe that the pistol which he was about to clean was loaded, pointed it at his friend R. R laughed and pretended to be shot. However, the gun went off and, in fact, R was killed. Unknown to Q, Q's on had loaded some bullets into the pistol.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Question Q, believe that the pistol which he was about to clean was loaded, pointed it at his friend R. R laughed and pretended to be shot. However, the gun went off and, in fact, R was killed. Unknown to Q, Q's on had loaded some bullets into the pistol. Advised Q. What difference, if any, would it make to your advice if Q had been drinking alcohol-free beer which Q'son had laced with a strong sedative and had caused Q to become befuddled so that Q believed that he was not pointing the gun at R? Suggested Solution Q � R (Murder) * Finding facts that Q did not intend to kill or cause GBH to R. * It would not satisfy the mens rea of murder. * Follows R v Hancock and Shankland [1986], Q did not have the foresight of consequences flowing from his act and the degree of probability of 'natural consequences'. In the matter of laws are so important to consider in inferring whether the result Q was intended. * Follows R v Nedrick [1986], Q did not recognise that R's death or serious harm would be 'virtually certain' to result from his act. ...read more.

Middle

* Finding facts supported that Q was aware of the risk and went ahead regardless or had not given the matter any thought. (Caldwell objective reckless) * Alternatively, if Q had considered whether there was a risk that the gun would gone off, but had wrongly concluded that it was safe, the position is less certain. * In this scenario, there may be a case where Q considered whether there was a risk of harm and decided that there was none (wrongly concluded to be safe). * Q was not reckless within the precise wording of Lord Diplock's definition in Caldwell because he had given considerable thought to the risk but come to the wrong conclusion as to its significance. * In this situation is sometimes referred to as the "lacuna" or "loophole" in the Caldwell principle, this matter was consider by House of Lord in R v Reid [1992]. * There are two situations that can be drawn, either Q was aware that there was a risk, but went ahead regardless (concluded no risk) or that Q had not given the matter any thought, as he did consider, whether there was a risk, but came to the wrong conclusion. ...read more.

Conclusion

* Consequently, Q may argue his state of intoxication that he would not have pointed the gun at R and pulled the trigger had he not been drugged. * Alternatively, Q may argue that the sedative drug administered to him by his son caused him enter into a state of automatism in which he was not in control of his acts followed the case R v Bailey [1983].(mens rea was not formed) * "Automatism" applies to the situation where the defendant is not legally insane but because of some external factor he is unable to control what he is doing. * In contrary, follows the principal authority of the Court of Appeal decision in Bailey [1983], an accused may be prevented from raising the defence of automatism, where there is evidence to show that he was in some way at fault in bringing about the state of automatism. * On the other, the court requires to investigate whether Q was reckless in consuming the drug that caused him to enter into the state of automatism. * Given facts supported that Q 's son has given him the drug without his knowledge, so that he would not therefore be reckless and should be allowed the defence of automatism. ...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)

    This case established what is known as the 'but for' test. There are several defences to negligence. Before the law reform contributory negligence was a complete defence however it is now recognised that there must be fault on both parties.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.

    3 star(s)

    her brain haemorrhage but she eventually dies of asphyxia which was caused by the defendant cramming 8 inches of bed sheet into her mouth. At trial defendant said he had no knowledge of what he was doing and had no intention to harm her.

  1. Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter

    immediate and as long as there was a last straw and a final snap then there could still be provocation. Also in R V Humphries it was said that the whole history of provocation should be taken into account. However the courts think that this provides women with a "licence to kill".

  2. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    - the defence was that he was so drunk that he had not thought about the danger to life at all. The trial judge directed the jury that drunkenness was no defence - the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and that left the House of Lords to decide on the meaning of recklessness and the relevance of drunkenness.

  1. Involuntary Manslaughter

    However, if a reasonable person would have known that some physical harm was likely to occur, and it causes death, such as a heart attack for example, then D may be guilty. Gross negligence manslaughter AR * D had a duty of care * There was a breach of this

  2. In the scenario for this report the parties have committed certain crimes - give ...

    positive the second part is applied which is whether the defendant knew that this was dishonest. If on the evidence it could be found that her confusion caused her to believe what she was doing, was honest then she would be acquitted.

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

    In this sense, in Cunliffe v Goodman [1950], Lord Asquith stated that the 'core' sense of intention "connotes a state of affairs which the party 'intending' ... does more than merely contemplate: it connotes a state of affairs which, on the contrary, he decides, so far as in him lies, to bring about".

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

    In this case, concerning in detail the action of Titus, his action is held liable by his employer and the damages he caused to Maria?s premise is obvious. He knocked over the opened oil can causing high intensive of the fire and more serious damage.

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