• 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)

    Finally in a sports game the referee may be held liable for claims in negligence. On the field of play the referee is responsible for the game and keeping the players within the rules of the game. The land mark case in this area which has concerned most match officials

  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. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    This has facilitated many more defendants being tried for their crimes and also allowed juries to convict those who would have been acquitted on a technicality.

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

    This dissertation from www.coursework.info However, there exist a further two situations where motive is almost indistinguishable from intention; first, in s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and second, in the offence of burglary, where the requisite mens rea is both the intention to enter another's house without permission and (the ulterior intent or motive)

  1. Involuntary Manslaughter

    The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. The act need not even be directed at a person, it can be aimed at property, provided it is dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause harm to another, as shown in Goodfellow.

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

    Chemi-Kaze PLC can claim damages. Chemi-Kaze PLC is liable for Flower Power since its negligent act. Flower Power can claim damages. 3.3. Vicarious liability 3.3.1. General vicarious liability Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency ? respondeat superior ? the responsibility of the superior

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