In order to be able to discuss the potential criminal liability of Mo and Bill. It is essential to understand that Mo and Bill have committed two completely different and separate offences. To establish the liability for Mo and Bill, we must be able to show the Actus Reus of the crime (the actual physical event) and the Mens Rea of the crime (defendants' state of mind). It has been established that there is no crime if the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea does not coincide with each other.
In order to define what Mo's criminal liability is, we must be able to identify what the actual Actus Reus of this situation is. Within this situation, Bill was telling Mo how much his practical jokes had irritated him. In response, Mo pulled out a heavy fob watch and started to swing it around his head at full speed. However, Mo misjudged the distance and caught Anya "in the face and smashed her glasses." From this, we can see that the actual act was the swinging of the fob watch that hit Anya. Causation must be proven by both fact and in law. To establish causation within fact, it is necessary to firstly ask, if the defendant in fact caused the consequence of the offence. This is known as the "But for Test. this test asks "but for what the defendant did, would the consequences have occurred?" However, causation is not always as straightforward as it may appear to be. There can sometimes be a 'break in causation' (nouvus actus interveniens). Within the situation there was no intervening act, this is evident because the Actus Rea and the Mens Rea of Mo's conduct was simply transferred onto Anya.
Transferred Malice accepts that the intended victim and the actual victim are treated as one. This entitles that the Mens Rea for one specific act can justify another act, except if the Mens Rea is of a completely different element.
We must now look at determining the Mens Rea of Mo's act. Mens Rea involves looking at whether Mo intended to cause the accident. There are two types of intent, direct intention, which identifies what someone's aim, and purpose was, while performing the act. Oblique Intention looks at whether the act was virtually certain of causing ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Transferred Malice accepts that the intended victim and the actual victim are treated as one. This entitles that the Mens Rea for one specific act can justify another act, except if the Mens Rea is of a completely different element.
We must now look at determining the Mens Rea of Mo's act. Mens Rea involves looking at whether Mo intended to cause the accident. There are two types of intent, direct intention, which identifies what someone's aim, and purpose was, while performing the act. Oblique Intention looks at whether the act was virtually certain of causing injury. Oblique intention was first outlined in the case Woolin, within this case the courts identify that the defendant must appreciate that there was a substantial risk attached to the act itself. However, the defendant stated that the substantial risk was a test of recklessness not under the intention to cause harm. In order to identify recklessness, the courts must assess whether it is 'subjective' or 'objective' recklessness.
It was the case Cunningham that first outlined the fundaments of the subjective test. This identified that not only should there be proof that the defendant took an unjustified risk, it must also show that the defendant was aware of this risk. From this case, we can see that the subjective test aims to look at the act from the defendants point of view, however the objective test aims to look at what a reasonable mans' point of view is.
From this, we are able to identify what potential liability Mo should receive. Mo should be convicted under the Offences against the Persons Act 1861.(OAPA) However the difficulty lies in being able identify what section of the OAPA, Mo should be convicted off. Firstly, we are able to rule out S18 of the OAPA, this is evident when looking at Mo's intention. However, Mo did not intend to hurt Anya, he only wanted to frighten Bill or at least cause slight injury to Bill. This shows that Mo did not intend to cause grievous harm, which shows that S18 will not apply. Now that we are able to rule out S18, we must now consider whether Mo can be convicted under s20 or s47 of the OAPA. In order to do this we must understand that under S47, Mo has caused actual bodily harm; by S20 of the OAPA, they have inflicted bodily harm with a weapon. It can be established that from the medical expert that it would be virtually certain that serious injury would have been inflicted, this action should have been reasonably foreseen and therefore the unjustified risk would have been taken. From this, we can see that Mo would be liable for GBH contrary to S20 of the OAPA.
In order to establish the liability of Bill we must be able to understand the situation that Bill has got himself into. Bill has endangered the lives of others by setting fire to the carpet. It is important to start by understanding Causation. By doing this we will be able to establish whether "But For" Bills neglect in preventing the fire is what endangered the people in the building. Burning the book, is neither unlawful so this is not an actual crime. However, because Bill does not do anything to prevent the event he is liable. Bill is liable for arson contrary to s. 1(2) (a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
However, under s.1 (2) (b) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, it states that any persons 'intending the destruction or damage to endanger someones life they will be reckless and therefore shall be guilty of an offence.' From this we must considered whether S1(2a) should be substituted. As the Mens Rea required for this offence is either intention or recklessness, the test in R v G test must be put forward to the jury;
'A person acted recklessly within the meaning of s.1 of the 1971 Act with respect to (i) a circumstance when he was aware of a risk that it existed or would exist; (ii) a result when he was aware of a risk that it would occur, and it was, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take that risk.'
Bill would therefore be charged contrary to s.1 (2) (b) and s.1 (3), known together as aggravated arson.
In conclusion to the situation between Mo and Bill we are able to identify that Mo should be charged and convicted of Grievous Bodily Harm contrary to S20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. It is however, the jury's decision either to convict him on this charge or to convict Mo under S47 instead. However, either of these would conclude to a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. It has been identified that Bill would be charged and convicted of Arson contrary to s.1 (2) (b) and s.1 (3) as he has behaved reckless in endangering the lives of others. Under the R v G test, the maximum sentence for Bill would be life imprisonment.
Bibliography
Books
Unlocking Criminal Law, J Martin& C Turner, 2nd Edition, 2007, Oxford University Press
Criminal Law, Smith and Hogan, 12th Edition, 2008, Oxford University Press
Legislation
Offences against the Persons Act 1861
Criminal Damage Act 1971 c. 48
Offences against the Person Act 1861 c. 10
Cases
Woolin (19980 UKHL 28, (1998) 3 WLR 382
Cunningham (1957) 2 QB 396
R. v G [2003] 3 W.L.R. 1060
Word Count = 1,490
