Criminal Law – Problem Question Answer
In order to determine what Ann and Ian’s criminal liabilities are, one would have to
analyse the facts of their case, as well as to consider the legal areas which are
applicable to their case in order to establish the offence committed and whether they
have any valid defences. By considering each person’s criminal liability one at a
time, it will then be possible to determine whether or not they would be liable for a
criminal offence.
Firstly, it appears that Ann has committed the offence of unlawful homicide because
the actus reus of murder and manslaughter has been described by Lord Coke as
“unlawfully killing a reasonable person who is in being” 1. This is also a result crime.
This is applicable to Ann’s case because there is a possibility that Billy’s death could
make Ann liable for a homicide offence if the facts suggest that her actions had
caused Billy’s death.2
If Ann is to be found guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove that “her behaviour
in committing the actus reus must have been voluntary”. 3 In this case, the
prosecution would argue that because she has taken the children out of the house
before she douses Billy’s bed with petrol and sets fire to it, this is evidence that she
was aware of what she was doing as it shows that she only wanted her husband to
be killed or suffer from grievous bodily harm, and that there were no signs that she
was “not in control of her own body”.4 However, one can argue that it is questionable
whether she has committed the actus reus voluntarily because we are told that she
is now addicted to anti-depressants; hence it is possible that the drugs might have
caused her to lose physical control of her body.
In order to determine whether Ann has caused the prohibited result, one needs to
establish whether her acts were a factual cause of Billy’s death. To do so, “the
prosecution must prove two things”.5 The prosecution must first apply the “but for”6
test to assess whether or not “but for the conduct of the accused the victim would not
1
Coke, 2 Inst 47
2
Elliot, C. and Quinn, F. Criminal Law 6th edition (Essex: Pearson Education Ltd, 2006) p.69
3
Elliot, C. and Quinn, F. Criminal Law 6th edition (Essex: Pearson Education Ltd, 2006) p.10
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.p.50
6
Clarkson, C.M.V, Keating, H.M. and Cunningham, S.R. Clarkson and Keating Criminal Law 6th edition (London: Sweet
& Maxwell, 2007) p.451
In order to determine what Ann and Ian’s criminal liabilities are, one would have to
analyse the facts of their case, as well as to consider the legal areas which are
applicable to their case in order to establish the offence committed and whether they
have any valid defences. By considering each person’s criminal liability one at a
time, it will then be possible to determine whether or not they would be liable for a
criminal offence.
Firstly, it appears that Ann has committed the offence of unlawful homicide because
the actus reus of murder and manslaughter has been described by Lord Coke as
“unlawfully killing a reasonable person who is in being” 1. This is also a result crime.
This is applicable to Ann’s case because there is a possibility that Billy’s death could
make Ann liable for a homicide offence if the facts suggest that her actions had
caused Billy’s death.2
If Ann is to be found guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove that “her behaviour
in committing the actus reus must have been voluntary”. 3 In this case, the
prosecution would argue that because she has taken the children out of the house
before she douses Billy’s bed with petrol and sets fire to it, this is evidence that she
was aware of what she was doing as it shows that she only wanted her husband to
be killed or suffer from grievous bodily harm, and that there were no signs that she
was “not in control of her own body”.4 However, one can argue that it is questionable
whether she has committed the actus reus voluntarily because we are told that she
is now addicted to anti-depressants; hence it is possible that the drugs might have
caused her to lose physical control of her body.
In order to determine whether Ann has caused the prohibited result, one needs to
establish whether her acts were a factual cause of Billy’s death. To do so, “the
prosecution must prove two things”.5 The prosecution must first apply the “but for”6
test to assess whether or not “but for the conduct of the accused the victim would not
1
Coke, 2 Inst 47
2
Elliot, C. and Quinn, F. Criminal Law 6th edition (Essex: Pearson Education Ltd, 2006) p.69
3
Elliot, C. and Quinn, F. Criminal Law 6th edition (Essex: Pearson Education Ltd, 2006) p.10
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.p.50
6
Clarkson, C.M.V, Keating, H.M. and Cunningham, S.R. Clarkson and Keating Criminal Law 6th edition (London: Sweet
& Maxwell, 2007) p.451
