Criminal law
There are a number of important issues raised by the question, in connected with the criminal law. These issues will be looked at in relation to the scenario, which is presented by the question. In addition, the criminal liability of various individuals will be considered. The first important issue that is raised by this scenario is that of intention. Intention is one of the forms of Mens Rea ('Guilty mind') for crimes. Intention is defined as 'the state of mind of one who aims to bring about a consequence'1. However, a distinct needs to be made between the different types of intention, direct and oblique intention. Direct intention is as the definition says having an aim and bringing about that desired consequence. Oblique intention, on the other hand, is 'seeing' your desired aim as one of a number of possibilities on your act e.g. there could be many outcomes to your criminal act and your aim is just one of them. The issue of Intention raises very important questions for the criminal law and often it is up to the jury to decide whether the accused has the necessary intent to cause the crime. As regards the scenario, it could be argued, that Andy has a 'direct intention' to hit Bill as he 'deliberately kicks the ball in the direction of Bill'. There has been much debate within the courts as to what constitutes the requisite degree of intention. This has ranged
Discuss the problem of causation in criminal law and what rules have evolved to deal with the problem.
Discuss the problem of causation in criminal law and what rules have evolved to deal with the problem. Causation in its basest terms is simply the remoteness of the act from the crime. This in itself has caused many problems with regard to legal argument and also subsequent loopholes that appeared within the criminal law. It has been established over many years and tried cases, that there must be a clear and unbroken link, or chain of events, that links the defendant to the criminal act. The first and most important point to be considered is "would the act have occurred anyway?" This is often referred to as the "but for" test. In simplest terms this means would the consequence of the defendants act have occurred in the same way at the same time 'but for' the defendants actions. If the answer to this question is 'Yes' then the defendant is not guilty of that crime, R. v. White (1910). However, he may still be guilty of a different crime as with White. One question that has to be considered when looking at the question of causation is 'did the defendant actually commit the act?' If a criminal gets an innocent party to carry out the act of theft, does this exonerate him from prosecution? Surely if there is no actus reus then there is no crime. However, in R. v. Manley (1844) the courts felt otherwise and that a person will be guilty of the act even if an innocent
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW QUESTION : 1 Sara was teaching her husband, Tom to drive but he was a slow learner frequently subjected to excessive criticism by Sara and there were numerous arguments between them. During the course of a lesson, Sara suggested to Tom that he was not using the clutch properly. Tom made no reply but, a few minutes later, suddenly steered the car off the road into a ditch. At the time, Sara was not wearing her seatbelt and she was thrown through the windscreen and badly injured. Had she received prompt treatment, she would probably have survived but her body was not discovered until three hours later. Tom had also been injured in the crash and he was found by Vic an hour later, wandering about outside Vic's house, rambling and incoherent. Vic took him in and gave him a very large glass of brandy. Tom then left the house, walked along a pavement and crossed a main road in front of fast moving traffic. Una was driving on the road at the time and, in swerving to avoid Tom, ran into a queue of people at a bus stop and killed Walter. When stopped and questioned, Tom was though to be drunk but he maintained that he had no recollection of anything that had occurred after the original crash involving Sara. (a) Analyse the facts above to show whether and how Tom may be guilty of Sara's murder. How might he seek to reduce his liability for her death? (b) (i) Explain
Criminal Law
Title Page Roger and Steve are 15 year old boys. Steve is small for his age and very timid. He also has a heart defect. Roger attacks Steve, who experiences terror. Steve, in his attempt to escape, jumps over a wall not realising that there is a large drop on the other side. Steve's injuries necessitate his being admitted to hospital. Doctor Martin treats the obvious physical injuries suffered as a result of the fall, but, because he has failed to read Steve's medical notes, he does not appreciate that the trauma of the incident has weakened Steve's heart. Steve dies of heart failure. . Discuss whether Roger has caused Steve's death. (500 words) 2. In the event that Roger is found to have caused Steve's death, discuss whether Roger may be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter in respect of Steve. (500 words) 3. In the event that Dr Martin is found to have caused Steve's death, consider his liability for gross negligence manslaughter. (500 words) Your answer should be word processed and no more than 1500 words MODULE LEADER ASSIGNMENT TITLE CRIMINAL LAW LEVEL 1 IN COURSE ASSESSMENT DATE OF SUBMISSION WORD COUNT 648 (This excludes the footnotes/Appendices, footnote numbers in the text and also the bibliography) Criminal ICA - 1 Coursework During this short essay the principles of causation, Unlawful and dangerous Act manslaughter and Gross negligence manslaughter
Criminal Law
Essay - LL1014 Criminal Law 1 The purpose of this essay is to discuss the criminal liability of Alan, pub owner Ed, and Doctor Fiona, for the deaths of Betty and Clive, and whether Alan has criminal liability for the fire damages to the pub. In relation to each defendant I will indicate which offence/s they could be charged with and outline the definitions of each offence. I will discuss relevant principles such as causation and voluntariness of Actus Reus (AR), and then apply the law to the facts of each case. Discussing first the criminal liability of Alan for the deaths of Betty and Clive, I will consider both murder, and manslaughter. The required AR for both these offences is "The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace."1 Assuming that both victims were alive and that this scenario was not during a war, it remains to establish that this was an unlawful killing. It appears that Alan's shooting and setting the pub on fire is what led to both victims' deaths and clearly no justificatory defence such as self-defence or consent could be raised. But was this a voluntary act? "Voluntary" in criminal law is defined narrowly; a "muscular bodily movement controlled by will or volition". At this stage the defendant's desire is not relevant.2 However considering that Alan was already taking an aim, and was pulling the trigger in the moment that Dennis
Criminal Law
Criminal Law Michealmas Term Essay 1 Questions about causation are simple factual ones. Therefore juries require no direction in answering them. Discuss Causation is an element of 'Result Crimes', in which the conduct itself does not constitute a crime, for example, shooting a gun, but rather the conduct along with it's harmful consequence, for example, shooting a gun at a person and the person dying. It is this gap between the conduct and harmful result, which gives rise to the uncertainty as to who's conduct caused the harmful result, and even if the harmful result was due to a human action, or just a natural event. When determining the chain of causal events leading up to a result, only the facts are relevant. However, once the causes are determined, principles of law must be applied to identify which of these causal acts were unlawful, as a person cannot be convicted for an innocent act. Therefore, causation is a question of fact and law. The main method for identifying causes to a harmful result is the 'But-For' test, with which all actions but for which the harmful result would not have occurred, are causes of the result. In the majority of cases, questions of causation are simple, even in homicide cases where the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. For example (1.0), if A shoots B, and B drops dead on the spot, it does not have to be proven that it was the
Explain what is meant by the term causation in criminal law and assess how the courts have interpreted its significance in determining criminal liability.
Causation Explain what is meant by the term ‘causation’ in criminal law and assess how the courts have interpreted its significance in determining criminal liability. With a conduct crime an act or an omission is enough to establish the actus Reus e.g. someone punches another person; the act of punching is sufficient to establish the actus Reus. With a result crime the act or omission must result in a given consequence e.g. if a person stabs someone and they die of the injuries. The act of stabbing has resulted in the consequence of the death. Causation is only relevant to result crimes most cases involve homicide where the act or omission of the defendant has resulted in the consequences necessary for this offence of death. The causation element will be established if the act or omission of the D actually caused the death. Causation is a matter for the jury to decide from the facts of the case and also with direction from the judge. In the case of Pagett the following direction was given to help establish causation in law: 'Simply that in law the accused's act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the victims death, it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result'. In the case of Kimsey the court of appeal held that instead of using the Latin phrase de minimis, it was acceptable to tell the jury it must be 'more than a
Criminal Law
Criminal Law . Vincent, an Afro-Caribbean, was walking home when Kevin, a member of an extreme right-wing group, started shouting racist abuse. Kevin then attacked Vincent and pulled out a knife. Vincent suffered several deep cuts to his face and part of his ear was severed. a. Explain the terms actus reus and mens rea. Using those explanations, outline an appropriate offence with which Kevin might be charged. (15 marks) Actus reus means the guilty act, this is the physical element of a crime, this includes an act, failure to act [an omission]. An omission is when the defendant is under a legal duty to act in a certain way, this may include, a contractual/vocational duty [R v Pittwood], a relationship [R v Stone and Dobinson] or when the defendant creates a situation whereby a duty is imposed [R v Miller]. The courts will look at two issues when they are determining whether or not the defendant's actions caused the victims injury or death. Theses two issues are causation in law and causation in fact. Causation in law is when the defendant's actions are not the only cause for the injury or death but plays a part. The court's say the defendant makes a significant contribution [R v Smith]. Causation in fact is when the defendant's action causes the end result, this is judged by the 'but for' test, this basically means 'but for' the defendant's actions the victim would not
Explain what is meant by the term 'causation' in criminal law and assess how the courts have interpreted its significance in determining criminal liability.
In criminal law, an act or omission that produces a consequence is called causation. To prove that the consequence was caused by the defendant’s act, the prosecution must show that; the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence, it was the legal cause of the consequence and there was no intervening act from the victim or a third party that broke the chain of causation. To test whether the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence, the ‘but for’ test is used. This tests whether the consequence would have happened but for the defendant’s act or omission. An example case where the ‘but for’ test was used is Pagett (1983), where the defendant took his girlfriend hostage, then when police called on him to surrender, he came outside using the girl as a human shield and opened fire. When the police returned fire, they killed the girlfriend. Because the police wouldn’t have shot the girl ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct, the defendant was liable for manslaughter. An example where the ‘but for’ test was not satisfied was White (1910), where a man poisoned his mother’s drink in an attempt to kill her. She died before she drank the tea, and therefore he was not the factual cause of death and not guilty of murder, however, he was guilty of attempted murder. The second half of causation is whether the defendant’s
Discover whether, in the criminal law, negligence ever breaks the chain of causation and to determine the circumstances if this is ever so
The object of this essay is to attempt to discover whether, in the criminal law, negligence ever breaks the chain of causation and to determine the circumstances if this is ever so. In order to do this it is necessary to first identify what causation is. In basic terms, causation is simply a question of who or what caused a specific event to happen. For example, in a result crime, it must be proved that the defendant's conduct caused the forbidden consequence. If this cannot be proved, D is not guilty of the crime. Obviously then, causation is an important issue. It is not, however, always a contentious one, as in many cases the cause is obvious and not disputed. Questions on causation usually arise in cases of murder. In order to be guilty of murder you must have caused an acceleration of death. It makes no difference if the victim was already sick, injured or dying, as it can be said that since we will all die someday, we are all dying anyway. As Lord Alverstone CJ said in Dyson1: - "The proper question to have been submitted to the jury was whether the prisoner accelerated the child's death by the injuries which he inflicted in December, 1907. For if he did, the fact that the child was already suffering from meningitis, from which it would in any event have died before long, would afford no answer to the charge of causing its death." Causation is in some sense a
