Case Study On Criminal Liabilities And Defences Used Law Essay

August 29, 2017 Law

Case Study: Raquel is lazy. Boris, her line director, assigns her an of import, but humble, undertaking. She fails to finish this undertaking, and tells him that she did non make it because she is ‘not his retainer ‘ . Boris loses his pique, and putting to deaths Raquel.

Boris claims that he found Raquel ‘s behavior peculiarly infuriating because ‘women should cognize their topographic point ‘ . He has problem commanding his pique because of the hurting from an old war lesion. Advise Boris about his condemnable liability.

During the onslaught, he by chance hits Zhanna, another colleague, doing her terrible bruising.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Boris may be apt for offenses against both Raquel and Zhanna. In relation to Raquel, Boris may be reprehensively apt for her slaying. In relation to Zhanna, Boris may be apt for one or more of several offenses including Battery, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and/or Assault Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm. Liability, possible defense mechanisms and extenuating fortunes will be considered in bend.

Boris ‘ Liability for the slaying of Raquel

In order to be reprehensively apt for the slaying of Raquel, the Prosecution will hold to turn out the elements of slaying. Coke ‘s Institutes defined slaying in 1797 as being committed “ where a individual of sound head and discretion unlawfully kills any sensible animal in beingaˆ¦with purpose to kill or do dangerous bodily injury ”[ 1 ]. This rule has been built on by modern instance jurisprudence but non basically altered and still applies today. Using this definition to Boris ‘ instance, there does non look to be any contention as to whether Boris killed Raquel ; Boris clearly states that he committed the act. Whether Boris was of sound head will be considered but once more, there is clear grounds that Boris intended to kill or do dangerous bodily injury to Raquel.

There are a figure of entire and partial defense mechanisms for slaying. The defense mechanism of ego defense mechanism is an absolute one and would ensue in Boris being absolved of all liability but this does non use in this instance. However, there are partial defense mechanisms in jurisprudence which may cut down Boris ‘ liability from perpetrating slaying to perpetrating manslaughter. These three fortunes are Provocation, Diminished Responsibility and moving in pursuit of a suicide treaty. Obviously the 3rd circumstance does non use but the first two should be considered.

The Defence of Provocation

The partial defense mechanism of Provocation merely applies to the offense of slaying and has the consequence of cut downing liability from that of slaying to manslaughter. Should Boris plead aggravation, he would hold to accept all elements of slaying put by the Prosecution including the purpose to kill Raquel[ 2 ]. It would be improbable that Boris would object to this nevertheless as grounds would propose that he has already admitted to killing Raquel. S3 Homicide Act 1957 governs the jurisprudence as to provocation saying that in a slaying instance “ there is grounds on which the jury can happen that the individual charged was provoked ( whether by things done or by things said or by both together ) to lose his self-denial, the inquiry whether the aggravation was adequate to do a sensible adult male so as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury ; and in finding that inquiry the jury shall take into history everything both done and saidaˆ¦[ 3 ]“ Should Boris seek to trust on this partial defense mechanism the burden of cogent evidence would still rest with the Prosecution and therefore arguably, Boris would non hold to turn out that he lost self control. Rather, the Prosecution would hold to turn out that he was in control and had non been provoked to the point in which the sensible adult male would hold acted in the same mode. Whilst the burden would non be on Boris, the grounds that he did in fact lose self-denial, to such a grade, must fulfill the jury[ 4 ]. Case jurisprudence has provided some elucidation as to the defense mechanism of aggravation. The instance of R v Duffy was referred to as still being good and current jurisprudence by Lord Goddard C J in R 5 Whitfield: “ Aggravation is some act, or series of Acts of the Apostless, doneaˆ¦which would do any sensible individual, and really causes in the accused, a sudden and impermanent loss of ego control, rendering the accused so capable to passion as to do him or her for the minute, non maestro of his head.[ 5 ]“ Clearly the jury would non merely have to believe that a sensible individual would hold lost self-denial in his state of affairs, but that at the clip Boris killed Raquel, he was literally out of his head.

A farther consideration needed to be taken by the jury when sing whether Boris was provoked into killing Raquel, is the character and nature of Boris ‘ personally. There has been some legal statement in recent old ages as to whether the sensible adult male trial should be so nonsubjective as to non take any consideration as to the personality features of the suspect. This was resolved in the instance of AG for Jersey V Holley[ 6 ]in which it was held that whilst features of a violent disposition[ 7 ]or sensitiveness should be considered by the jury, there should be an nonsubjective criterion of ego control based on the suspect ‘s age and sex which must be applied to all[ 8 ]. Boris states that his motivation for killing Raquel is that her behavior was “ peculiarly exasperating ” to him because “ adult females should cognize their topographic point ” . Boris ‘ being a woman hater does non be the feature of seminal instances in which such features as being a glue-sniffer were a consideration[ 9 ]. S3 of the Homicide Act 1957 does let the jury to see the features of the suspect as they must see everything said and done and therefore, if a gum sniffer is taunted for his dependence, this should be considered as more of a aggravation that had those words been said to a non-addict. However, it is less clear in Boris ‘ instance whether Raquel ‘s words should hold more of an consequence on Boris than other people in his place. This is partially because Raquel ‘s behavior toward Boris had nil to make with his being a woman hater. Furthermore, though there is no instance jurisprudence on misogynism as a characteristic to be considered by a jury, it is improbable that this would fall under the same class of unnatural features. Subsequently, it is extremely improbable that Boris could hold this characteristic considered within the issue of aggravation.

The inquiry of whether a sensible individual would hold acted as Boris did is improbable to ensue in a favorable result for Boris. Raquel ‘s behavior was non utmost plenty to ensue in an ordinary individual losing all ego control. Again, it would be reasonably easy for a prosecuting officer to carry the jury that Boris, as a sensible individual, did non lose all ego control. Possibly more significantly there is small grounds to propose that Boris did personally lose all control at all. His ground for killing Raquel, whilst being utmost, was rationally decided upon. By his ain admittance, Boris killed her because he found her behaviour peculiarly raging due to her being a adult female. He makes no mention in his grounds of losing control at all. Consequently aggravation would non be proven and Boris would still be apt for slaying.

The Defence of Diminished Responsibility

Boris has claimed that he has trouble commanding his pique due to an old war lesion. Arguably, this could be raised in relation to aggravation in that it is an unnatural feature. However, this is a weaker statement than mentioning to Boris ‘ misogynism as features appear to merely be applied in instances in which the provoking act itself relates to the ground for losing ego control. This is non the instance in relation to Boris.

The partial defense mechanisms of Diminished Responsibility would hold the same consequence upon Boris ‘ liability as Provocation and later would cut down the offense from slaying to manslaughter. S6 ( B ) of The Criminal Procedure ( Insanity ) Act 1964 states “ Where on test for slaying the accused contendsaˆ¦that at that clip he was enduring from such abnormalcy of head as is specified in subdivision ( 1 ) of subdivision 2 of the Homicide Acts 1957 ( Diminished Responsibility ) aˆ¦ ” Again, the burden of cogent evidence is upon the prosecution to confute that Boris was non enduring from such mental damage but Boris ‘ grounds must fulfill the jury that he was enduring from a high province of abnormalcy of head. Should the Prosecution accept Boris ‘ supplication of guilty to Manslaughter on the evidences of Diminished Responsibility it is likely that a infirmary order would be made[ 10 ]. There is no grounds as to any psychiatric study on Boris ‘ province of head but the grounds available does non bespeak a lesion which consequences in his head being impaired. Rather, it would look that Boris has a short pique non an abnormalcy of head and later, it is improbable that Boris could successfully plead Diminished Responsibility.

Boris ‘ liability for the hurts sustained by Zhanna

With respect to Zhanna, the offense which Boris may be apt for is contingent upon the hurts sustained. The most likely offense that Boris will be apt for in Zhanna ‘s instance is Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm reverse to S47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The Prosecution will hold to turn out that an assault was carried out and that this caused the injury to Zhanna.

For Boris to be held apt for assault and the hurts sustained, he must hold acted deliberately or recklessly doing Zhanna to grok immediate improper force[ 11 ]. Though Boris had no hostile purpose in respect to Zhanna, he is still apt for the assault should it be determined he acted recklessly[ 12 ]. The grounds would propose that so Boris may hold been foolhardy in his behavior. The trial for foolhardiness is laid down in R V Cunningham[ 13 ]and holds that the suspect must hold some foresight of the victim groking force. The grounds does non province where Zhanna was when Boris killed Raquel or how the slaying was committed and so unequivocal advice as to liability is non possible. However, there is a clear deduction that Boris killed Raquel in a work environment in which other people were employed and therefore, it is non improbable that people would hold been in the locality and may hold been endangered by his actions. The sensible individual would hold some foresight into whether other people may be affected by the violent act. Therefore, it seems likely that Boris is apt for assailing Zhanna.

Boris ‘ Liability for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

Having ascertained that Boris is apt for an assault against Zhanna, the extent of the hurts must now be considered to find the possible offenses Boris may be charged with. It is extremely improbable that Boris will be charged with mere Assault and Battery. This offense may be on the indictment in the option but Battery frequently merely applies in instances where improper touching has taken topographic point but no hurts sustained[ 14 ]. As aforesaid, it is far more likely that Boris will be apt for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. The elements of this offense are the same as Assault but unlike Battery, more serious injury has been inflicted on the victim. The Mens Rea of an offense reverse to s47[ 15 ]is the same for an assault and later, Boris can be found guilty for moving recklessly.

Zhanna has clearly suffered bodily injury and her hurts are non transeunt of piddling[ 16 ]. It is likely that terrible bruising is serious plenty to justify an offense of Actual Bodily Harm.

The possible offense of Injuring Causing Grievous Bodily Harm reverse to s20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 should besides be considered. This would be the most serious offense Boris could be apt for in relation to his assault of Zhanna. Arguably Zhanna ‘s terrible bruising is serious plenty to represent it as dangerous under the Act as s20 does non necessitate the hurt to be lasting or unsafe[ 17 ]. The extent of the hurt is contingent upon the consequence of them on the peculiar victim[ 18 ]and so more information sing Zhanna ‘s hurts would be needed before once and for all reding as to Boris ‘ liability in this affair. Should the hurt have caused serious complications such as musculus or mobility harm, it may good be considered dangerous. The grounds known so far would bespeak that in relation to Zhanna, Boris is likely to be apt for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm instead than a more serious offense although the Prosecution may experience it appropriate to add Grievous Injuring to the indictment with Actual Bodily Harm as the option.



R v Martindale 50 Cr.App R 273.

R V Cox ( A.M ) [ 1995 ] 2 Cr.App.R 513

R v Whitfield 63 Cr.App.R 39 at 42

R V Duffy [ 1949 ] 1 All E.R. 932.

Attorney General for Jersey V Holley [ 2005 ] 2 A.C. 580, Personal computer.

R V Mohammed ( Faqir ) [ 2005 ] 9 Archbold News 3 CA.

R V Morhall [ 1996 ] AC 90

Fagan 5 Metropolitan Police Commissioner [ 1969 ] 1 QB 439, 52 Cr.App.R 700.

R V Lamb [ 1967 ] 2 Q.B. Cr.App.R. 417

R V Williams ( G ) 78 Cr. App.R. 276 at 279 CA.

R V Donovan [ 1934 ] 2 K.B. 498 25 Cr. App.R. 1. CCA

R V Ashman ( 1858 ) 1 F & A ; F. 88

R V Bollom, The Times Dec 15 2003 CA.

R V Cunningham [ 1957 ] 2 Q.B. 396. 41 Cr.App.R. 155 CCA


I'm Amanda

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out