Criminal Law Practise Question (Attempt 2) 1600 words
Firstly I will deal with Matt’s possible criminal liability of Murder Section 20 GBH, Section 47
ABH, S39 Common Assault.
Matt’s involvement in the death of Mike could be the common law offence of murder. The
Actus Reus of this offence is that the act in which took place must have caused death. This
can also be based on an omission if there is a duty to act, however, in this case this does not
apply as Matt physically shoved Mike down the stairs causing his injuries that led to his
death. The Mens Rea of murder is that the defendant had intent to kill or to cause GBH,
using Vickers [1957] and the tests for indirect or direct intent. The Jury may find it difficult to
come to conclusion around whether Matt’s intention was direct or indirect. He passes the
test set out under Woolin for indirect intent as it was a virtual certainty that the amount of
force, he used would cause injuries that could amount to death. Furthermore, his
abnormality in brain function stemming from PTSD from being in the army may also give rise
to indirect intent due to the anger that stems from this disorder. We must also take into
consideration as to whether Matt caused Mikes death or whether the doctors negligence
intervened. Using the “but for” test we can argue that but for Matt’s actions, Mike would
not have died. Furthermore, there has to be a break in causation for the doctor to be found
liable. It is unlikely that this would be found as Matt’s acts were still operative and
substantial enough to make a significant contribution to Mike’s death. Moreover, the
existing brain tumour would also not break the chain of causation due to the fact that it was
unknown that it was there and wasn’t killing him before Matt acted. Matt therefore passes
the AR and MR for a life sentence under the offence of murder. The jury may be faced with
the defence of diminished responsibility to reduce his conviction to voluntary manslaughter.
It is a question of whether his abnormality of brain functioning, stemming from PTSD,
substantially impaired his judgement and thus not fulfilling his MR. However, though this
unlikely, it would be to the discretion of the judge during trial to make this decision.
Matt punching Sandee in the face could either be a S47 Or S20 Offences Against the Person
Act 1861. Firstly, taking into consideration S47. The Actus Reus of this offence is assault or
battery which causes actual bodily harm “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the
heath or comfort of V” (Miller 1954). The Mens Rea of this offence is that there must be
intention or recklessness as to causing assault or battery shown by the Savage, Parmenter
case 1992. It could be said that Matt was reckless in his actions as he may not have intended
to cause the cut that occurred. Although Matt does satisfy the Miller test due to the cut on
Sandee’s face, this cut could be seen as something more significant and S20 could be taken
into account. The Actus Reus of this offence is that wounding needed to be a break in the
skin, confirmed by Eisenhower (1984). But it may also be GBH if there has been serious harm
but does not have to be life threatening. The Mens Rea is that the intention or subjective
recklessness as to causing some harm under Savage. Matt also passes the test for S20 as at
very least he was reckless as to causing his wife some harm. There is no defence as S47 and
S20 are basic intent offences and voluntary intoxication, which would be his only defence, is
not available to this offence under the case of Majewski (1977). Therefore, it would be up to
the CPS guidelines as to whether a S47 or a S20 offence is charged and under both a
maximum sentence of 5 years would be given.
Firstly I will deal with Matt’s possible criminal liability of Murder Section 20 GBH, Section 47
ABH, S39 Common Assault.
Matt’s involvement in the death of Mike could be the common law offence of murder. The
Actus Reus of this offence is that the act in which took place must have caused death. This
can also be based on an omission if there is a duty to act, however, in this case this does not
apply as Matt physically shoved Mike down the stairs causing his injuries that led to his
death. The Mens Rea of murder is that the defendant had intent to kill or to cause GBH,
using Vickers [1957] and the tests for indirect or direct intent. The Jury may find it difficult to
come to conclusion around whether Matt’s intention was direct or indirect. He passes the
test set out under Woolin for indirect intent as it was a virtual certainty that the amount of
force, he used would cause injuries that could amount to death. Furthermore, his
abnormality in brain function stemming from PTSD from being in the army may also give rise
to indirect intent due to the anger that stems from this disorder. We must also take into
consideration as to whether Matt caused Mikes death or whether the doctors negligence
intervened. Using the “but for” test we can argue that but for Matt’s actions, Mike would
not have died. Furthermore, there has to be a break in causation for the doctor to be found
liable. It is unlikely that this would be found as Matt’s acts were still operative and
substantial enough to make a significant contribution to Mike’s death. Moreover, the
existing brain tumour would also not break the chain of causation due to the fact that it was
unknown that it was there and wasn’t killing him before Matt acted. Matt therefore passes
the AR and MR for a life sentence under the offence of murder. The jury may be faced with
the defence of diminished responsibility to reduce his conviction to voluntary manslaughter.
It is a question of whether his abnormality of brain functioning, stemming from PTSD,
substantially impaired his judgement and thus not fulfilling his MR. However, though this
unlikely, it would be to the discretion of the judge during trial to make this decision.
Matt punching Sandee in the face could either be a S47 Or S20 Offences Against the Person
Act 1861. Firstly, taking into consideration S47. The Actus Reus of this offence is assault or
battery which causes actual bodily harm “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the
heath or comfort of V” (Miller 1954). The Mens Rea of this offence is that there must be
intention or recklessness as to causing assault or battery shown by the Savage, Parmenter
case 1992. It could be said that Matt was reckless in his actions as he may not have intended
to cause the cut that occurred. Although Matt does satisfy the Miller test due to the cut on
Sandee’s face, this cut could be seen as something more significant and S20 could be taken
into account. The Actus Reus of this offence is that wounding needed to be a break in the
skin, confirmed by Eisenhower (1984). But it may also be GBH if there has been serious harm
but does not have to be life threatening. The Mens Rea is that the intention or subjective
recklessness as to causing some harm under Savage. Matt also passes the test for S20 as at
very least he was reckless as to causing his wife some harm. There is no defence as S47 and
S20 are basic intent offences and voluntary intoxication, which would be his only defence, is
not available to this offence under the case of Majewski (1977). Therefore, it would be up to
the CPS guidelines as to whether a S47 or a S20 offence is charged and under both a
maximum sentence of 5 years would be given.
