Overview of Criminal Law | Assignment

Running head- CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

Criminal Law1
Part- 1
Answer to 1: Case Study- Bumble and the Beach
Issue:
The primary issue in the given scenario is whether the defense of Bumble shall be valid
during the trial?
Rules:
Section 234 of the Criminal Code states the offense of Manslaughter. It further
defines that culpable homicide will not be murder but infanticide will be treated as
manslaughter. Further Section 236 of the Criminal Code states that every person who
compels the crime is treated as guilty and liable, where there is a firearm involved in the
commission of the offense it leads to imprisonment for life or a minimum of four years of
conviction and in other cases imprisonment for life. Manslaughter is not clearly defined
anywhere in the Code but Sections 234 and 236 of the code describes them. In general terms,
it can be stated as any culpable homicide that does not qualify murder would consist
manslaughter. Most of the time, it depends on the actus reus and mens rea for the commission
of the crime. Manslaughter involves killing where the intentions are not to kill the person but
to cause grievous hurt. Practically, manslaughter consists of the intention to cause bodily
harm to a person knowing the fact that such harm might lead to the death of the person but
not killing the person.
Analysis
The facts of the case study state that Bumble follows Gargery to the beach where
Bumble repeatedly hit Gargery on his head with a basketball bat resulting in

Criminal Law2
unconsciousness. Bumble left Gargery on the beach knowing that he may drown due to the
tide that will occur soon. The postmortem report revealed that Gargery died due to drowning
and there was no significant head injury noted. As a result of that Bumble was charged with
manslaughter and in his defense, he states that he will not be liable for the charges as there
was no evidence of Gargery dying due to head injury. In his defense, he stated that he would
not be liable as the postmortem report clearly states the reason of death as drowning and not
due to hit.
Under Section 234 and 236 of the Criminal code, Bumble will be liable for
manslaughter. As per the explanation given in the sections, manslaughter consists of any
culpable homicide that is not qualifying. The definitions of a murder would be justified under
manslaughter. Actus reus the same as murder in manslaughter, but there lacks a definite mens
rea in manslaughter. Actus reus the guilty act and mens rea is the guilty mind for the
commission of such offense. For the commission of the offense of manslaughter, there is a
presence of the guilty act of the person committing it. For example, in the case of DPP v.
Newbery and Jones, a test was laid in order to identify the gravity to understand the damage
due to one’s act (Livings, 2016). In the following case, Bumble knew the fact that hitting him
in his head consistently might lead to the death of the person and Bumble had the intention to
cause bodily harm to Gargery which might result in his death. Thus, it qualifies the act
manslaughter and he will be liable for the same. These consist of two parts of manslaughter
that are voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter
consists of both the Actus reus and mens rea while involuntary manslaughter consists of only
the actus reus. In the following case study, Bumble will be charged under Section 236 and
234 for involuntary manslaughter as he had the motive of causing bodily harm to Gargery but
not his death. However, knowing the fact that he might be killed for such activity will qualify
for manslaughter. For example, in the case of R v. Quinn, the accused was held liable for the