Criminal Law - Case Study

this is a Criminal Law Case Study Essay with OSCOLA references please find attached the requirements of the assignment in file As1 Criminal law plus essay guide and problem question for help with the case study this should be done by 4th of march

Criminal Law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
Case Details............................................................................................................................1
Issue 1- Liability of Alan for the death of Father Brian.........................................................1
Issue 2- Is Alan is held responsible for the death of his mother June....................................3
Issue 3- Liability of doctor Chris for death of Brian..............................................................4
Issue 4- Is Alan potentially liable for the manslaughter of Brian?.........................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Crime is termed as an act and omission which leads to generation of an offense and is
termed punishable under legal system of the country. Criminal law is imposed so that any
unlawful act and conflicts among the general public of UK is resolved and maintained. Laws
provides a peaceful way in order to handle crime. In order to ensure that crime has been
performed one should have intention for the same and made an attempt to act in criminal
manner. In order to resolve criminal cases in more accurate and detailed manner application of
criminal law is made so that each case can be resolved in best suitable manner. In this project
report a case law is provided in which certain criminal activities are performed. A detailed
elaboration of the case and applicable law is made under this project report.
MAIN BODY
Case Details
Alan, a soldier was home for the weekend on leave. He was legally in possession with
several rifles. In an argument with his father, Brian in order to threat them he loaded one of his
gun and pointed at his father. He sneezed violently and trigger of the gun involuntarily squeezed.
Brian got injured with the bullet and the Alan fired a second shot to a vase and missed which
leads to hit his mother and she got killed same time. An ambulance was managed to call got
some delay and Brian was admitted to the hospital where his injuries were treated. After several
days a infection has developed in the wound1. He was provided a treatment of antibiotic form
which he was allergic. The next when he was not better then doctor provides him some antibiotic
in extremely large does. In the night when Brian was closed to death, he jumped out of the
window when he saw doctor approaching. He fall form two floors and was killed.
Issue 1- Liability of Alan for the death of Father Brian
As per legal system of UK criminal law declares certain acts as crime. In order to
consider an act or omission as crime is that act must be considered wrong by the society. The act
must generate some harm to the society those who are protected. The harm must be serious and
these types of issues must be handled in the criminal justice system of the country. In order to
ensure liability of Alan for the death of Father Brian it must be certain that act of Alan is
criminal act.
1 Youngjae Lee, 'What Is Philosophy Of Criminal Law?' (2013) 8 Criminal Law and Philosophy.
1

In this Alan who is a solder posses guns in legal manner and in order to threat his father
he loaded one of his gun. While he was pointing towards his father with the gun his body reacted
and he sneezes which leads to shoot the bullet and injured his father. This is a case of “Actue
Reus” which means that an actual crime which has occurred regardless of the guilty mind that
defendant possess while that crime is performed. It is termed as an guilty act which results in
performance of a criminal act. The physical activity of Alan leads to harm his father form bullet.
An act is considered as a crime when “Actus Reus” and “Mens Rea” has occurred
simultaneously. “Mens Rea” means an act is performed with guilty mind i.e. defendant is aware
of the fact that act is not lawful as per the law and still performs it2.
In this case Alan has created a dangerous situation and become unable to handle it and
perform a criminal act. As a solder he was available with gun but he must have not used such
gun in a fight with his father. A case R v Miller has occurred in the year 1983, in this case the
defendant had been out drinking for the evening when he returned to the house he fall asleep
with lighted cigarette in his hand3. He woke and saw that a little fire has started due to cigarette.
He work up and seen the fire and then went to other room to sleep. In this case court relied on the
ground that even he was aware of the fire he did not take any step to control it. The defendant
was held liable for the whole act in “Actus Reus”.
Killing is termed as unlawful when performed not because of self-defence or some
justified killing. In case R v Clegg , 1995 it was held that when a solider fires not because of
self-defence or to protect other person then it will termed as unlawful killing or murder. Act
performed by Alan at the time when he was in fully cautious and possess sound mind to judge
each act in effective manner4.
Conclusion
On the basis of analysis made for criminal laws and various case laws involving similar
situations it is concluded that Alan will be held liable for death of his father. The act performed
by him possess only “Actue Reus” and not “Mens Rea” as he only intended to threat his father.
Decision of the case R v Miller when applied in this case law then it can be said that Alan is
aware of the situation his act to load a gun can results. He was a solider and still knowing the fact
he made an attempt to load the gun just to threat. Together with this in case R v Clegg it is held
2 Kai Ambos, 'Current Issues In International Criminal Law' (2011) 14 Criminal Law Forum.
3 (R v Miller, 1983)
4 (R v Clegg, 1995)
2

that any killing by solider will be termed unlawful when not made for self-defence or to protect
some other person. Even when the act was not intended to harm others Alan act will be termed as
a crime and punishments will be provided for the same.
Issue 2- Is Alan is held responsible for the death of his mother June
The case law provides information regarding the situation which states that bullet to
mother June is an act of accident as Alan not directly or indirectly possess any form of intention
to kill his mother. Existence of guilty as i.e. “Actue Reus” was available but no guilty mind was
working in this relation. Alan has performed with Recklessness mens rea which involves taking
an unjustified risk. As the act performed by Alan creates obvious risk that leads to damages and
he also did not give thought to various possibilities of his act. In Elliott v C, 1983 a issue
regarding what is a risk as per law is considered. It was held that risk is considered to be one
which can be identified5. The defended did not provides any thought to such risk and task is
performed to generate any form of criminal act6.
Alan do not possess an direct or an indirect intention to kill per mother. The act of Alan
was not to provide any grievous bodily harm to his mother. As no information is provided for
any other injury or disease and Alan's bullet is the ultimate result of June's death. Alan fire a
bullet to vase and missed his shot which injured his mother, June and she died immediately. So it
helps to establish a direct relationship among death of June and act of Alan. Doctrine of
transferred malice applied in this case where mens rea is transferred to some other act too. In R v
Latimer, 1886 this was held that a defended will be held liable for the act of harm to third
person even if it was not intended7.
Conclusion
June died because of Alan's bullet and he is wholly responsible for her death. If doctor
provided Brain a proper treatment then he could be saved and this miss-happening can be
prevented. Doctrine of transferred malice will be applied in this case and Alan will be held liable
for the death of June.
5 (Elliott v C, 1983)
6 Mireille Hildebrandt, 'European Criminal Law And European Identity' (2006) 1 Criminal Law
and Philosophy.
7 (R v Latimer, 1886)
3

Issue 3- Liability of doctor Chris for death of Brian
Brian was admitted to the hospital and doctor provides him an antibiotic for inaction to a
wound. Doctor overdosed him with such antibiotic which takes Brian in more critical condition.
This made Brian took step for sue-side and ultimately to his killing. In this case causation-in-fact
is identified which results in a “but for” test. In this test it will be determined that if the actions
leads to the results. When this test is conducted in the given case study it will be identified that
an act of doctor Chris results in the death of Brian. R v White, 1910 case established the “but
for” test. In which it is held that an result has occurred due to action of defendant then only
defendant will be held liable8.
In legal terms causation is termed as a relationship that actions and results possess. In the
given case the operating and substantial cause of death to Brian is antibiotics which he was
allergic. In R v Jordan, 1956 case the defendant is held not liable because the injured person
died ultimately because of the medical treatment. In this case also Brian died because of the
medical treatment provided to him was not appropriate (Robinson, 2017). De minimal principle
is applied which means minimal things as case law R v Adams, 1957 specifies that act
performed by doctors to accomplish the minimum requirement to save a life will not be
considered a criminal act9. Novus actus interveniens is a form of negligence which results in
some unforeseeable events and causes some loss to plaintiff. Here, doctor acted to save Brian
and not aware regarding his allergies and this made him a non performer of criminal activities. In
R v Pagett, 1983 case it was held that when police officer fire back to a criminal and he uses a
girl as a shield results in death of the girl (R v Pagett, 1983).
Application of the all principles as mentioned in the different case law requires a direct or
indirect relationship in the action of defendant and the results which leads to a criminal act. As,
Chris perform act which made Brian more ill and unstable medical conditions. This is the cause
of his death in substantial terms.
Conclusion
It is concluded that Alan is factual and legal cause of Brains death and the act of Dr.
Chirs has broken the chain of causation. As his antibiotic which Brain is allergic results to made
8 (R v White. 1910)
9 'Developments In Criminal Law And Criminal Justice' (2016) 4 Criminal Law Forum.
4

the situation worst. Considering this fact Chris is held liable for his wrongful act. But he intended
to save patient so it can not be termed as an criminal act.
Issue 4- Is Alan potentially liable for the manslaughter of Brian?
Manslaughter is a situation which leads to killing of an individual in a situation not
amounting to murder. In R v Bateman case it was identified that negligence must have reach to
such situation which results in damages that can not be met with any form of compensation10.
Application of this case in the present case specifies that Alan is liable for the
manslaughter of Brain.
Conclusion
It has been concluded that application of criminal law will be made on Alan for liability
towards Brian.
10 Criminal Law (Cavendish 2015).
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
'Developments In Criminal Law And Criminal Justice' (2016) 4 Criminal Law Forum
Ambos K, 'Current Issues In International Criminal Law' (2011) 14 Criminal Law Forum
Criminal Law (Cavendish 2015)
Hildebrandt M, 'European Criminal Law And European Identity' (2006) 1 Criminal Law and
Philosophy
Lee Y, 'What Is Philosophy Of Criminal Law?' (2013) 8 Criminal Law and Philosophy
Online
R v Miller. 1983. [Online]. Available through:
<http://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Miller.php>
R v Clegg. 1995. [Online]. Available through:
<http://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Clegg.php>
R v White. 1910. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-White.php>
R v Pagett. 1983. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/R-v-Pagett.php>
Elliott v C. 1983. [Online]. Available through:
<http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Elliott-v-C.php>
R v Latimer. 1886. [Online]. Available through:
<http://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Latimer.php>
6