Criminal Law Mooting - Moot Proforma

This document discusses the criminal law mooting case of Charles Waitrose, who is appealing against the murder charges of his daughter. It explores the concept of diminished responsibility and provides references to relevant cases. The document also discusses the second ground of appeal and the use of previous cases in making fair decisions. The conclusion highlights the application of diminished responsibility in criminal cases.

CRIMINAL LAW

Table of Contents
CRIMINAL LAW MOOTING - MOOT PROFORMA..................................................................3
BUNDLES:......................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION: ..............................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

CRIMINAL LAW MOOTING - MOOT PROFORMA
IN THE .....
BETWEEN
……ROSE …………………………
Appellant
-And-
……………WAITROSE……………………
Respondent
RESPONDENT SKELETON ARGUMENT AND BUNDLE
ON BEHALF OF THE LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Name:
Student Number:
Moot judge:
In this the judgement or appeal must be made regarding saving the life of the Florence in
respect of not carrying any chances of improvement in health or mental conditions. As this raise
the act of the criminal activity in which the mens rea is examined in which the intention of doing
wrongful activity is undertaken regarding committing crime (Cross, 2020). To prove the crime
related to mens rea, it carries four aspects such as purpose of crime or knowledge of committing
such illegal act or recklessly harming any person or also negligence committing such task which
resulting in causing murder. From carrying the matters under the cases, the judgement is raised

regarding committing the criminal activity. Thus, in such aspects, appeal is made by the
respondent regarding not considering such act as crime and also this activity is to be committed
in good faith. The jury feels that this activity is to be committed in not carrying any mens rea and
also the person had appointed the nurse to take care of his child (Rumbold, Morrison and Riha,
2016). But in other aspects, Charles is familiar with the facts that the therapy session not improve
the condition of his daughter and also the pain and trouble which arise from therapy is
unbearable.
First ground of appeal:
In context of matter mentioned under first ground of appeal, it is undertaken regarding
not satisfied with the decision given by the court against the crime which is committed by
Charles Waitrose by killing his 8 year daughter Florence. As Appeal is made by the respondent
against whom the case is filed regarding committing murder of his daughter which carry the
chances of survival in long term. In respect of Diminished responsibility it refers to such crime
which is committed by one party in respect of good faith. In these aspects, the person who
commit such crime are less answerable regarding the act which they committed. Usually this
situation arises in respect of person who are mentally sick or insane or covering with various
disorder to live their life in longer way (Gardner, Green and Leiter, 2018). Thus, in such aspects,
the crime is committed to safe his life from with troubling or extra pain.
Submission(s)* on the first ground of appeal:
This is supported with the similar cases which stated that:
1. In case of Re A (conjoined twins) [2001] 2WLR 480 the appeals is made regarding
separation of the twins. As in respect of matters related to the Diminished Responsibility,
the act of murder are undertaken (Re A (conjoined twins) [2001] 2WLR 480, 2001). Thus,
the judgement of this case is referred under section 1B of Homicide act, 1957.
2. In respect of second case, it refers to the case study of the R V Latimer, the case stated
regarding killing his daughter Tracy Latimer who is 12 year old and also had cerebral
palsy. After attaining so many operations, still she is not well and thus, the decision of the
father is raised regarding killing his daughter (R V Latimer, 1886). The judgement against
this case is raised under section 12 of the charter which indicates the mind of the mens
rea. But in this case the crime is not proved as the person is not convicted under the
offences of criminal nature.

3. The another case which reflect the same point is of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland in which
the case stated that Bland injured through the Hillsborough disaster and due to that
aspects he suffered from serious brain damages (Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, 1993). In
respect of not having continuous improvement, their parent demanded to die him with
full dignity. The judgement against this case is raised under section 52 of the Coroners
and justice act, 2009.
Authorities:
1. Re A (conjoined twins) [2001] 2WLR 480, Section 1B of Homicide act, 1957
2. R V Latimer, section 12 of the charter of the criminal act, which indicates the mind of the
mens rea.
3. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, Section 52 of the Coroners and justice act, 2009
Second ground of appeal:
In respect of undertaking the matters or decision which is passed from the civil courts,
they are considered to be first appeal but if the decision and judgement is not satisfactory, the
respondent or appellant can file the suit or make an appeal to higher courts. This refers to the
second ground of appeal (Graham, 2018). In this, the judges who are sitting on the courts refers
to the cases from the starting or also undertake the judgement which is given by subordinate
courts. The superior courts where the appeal is made carry the rights to investigate the matters
again and also provide judgement by taking the stipulated time period.
In this case, the facts which is examined is relating to committing this crime for the sake
of securing the life of the daughter which is suffering from inoperable malignant brain tumour
for 6 months. Thus, the attack which is committed by Charles is resulting to saving his child
from unbearable pain. The first judgement which is raised is just in favour of committing crime
but not familiar with the facts through which this act happens (Keiler and Roef, 2016). For this
perspective, various cases are stated which helps the court to take the right decision through
adapting the common law procedure. In this procedure, the judges can refer the judgement or
decision from the previous cases and then applies it to recent cases to provide accurate and fair
decisions.
BUNDLES:
1) Re A (conjoined twins) [2001] 2WLR 480
Headnotes:

In this case, the matters related to criminal activity is determined, as doctors are liable to
be punishable but the matters is related to saving the life of one of the children. As the case is
very crucial, as two conjoined children named Gracie and Rosie Attacd were joined at the
abdomen. The report which the doctors stated that if they both are not separated, then the
chances of living for both is zero. As per the doctors report, they also said that the Gracie carries
the 94% chances of living and Rosie was guaranteed to be died (Re A (conjoined twins) [2001]
2WLR 480, 2001). As she is taking breath through her sister oxgenerate blood. If they both are
not separated, they both will die due to having inevitably results of their health issues.
REFERENCES:
 In such manner the judgement is supported with the decision of the three judges which
one stated that the killing one child is crime and thus not allow to do so.
 The other judge supported his judgement by referring to the case of R V Dudley and
Stephens and supported in favour of doctors decisions.
 The decision of third judge is also in favour of the doctors decision regarding operating
the children. So, that the chances of survival of one child is greater than comparison to
other.
2) R V Woollin
Headnotes:
This case reflects the nature of mens rea, which is relevant to the case of R V Woollin. In
this case the issues is raised regarding committing crime by losing his control in undertaking the
matters. As Woollin admitted his crime, that the incident happens just by losing the control as his
son which is three month old, choked on his food. Through these aspects, Woollin not control his
anger which resulting in throwing his child towards the room and the results arises regarding
death of his child.
REFERENCES:
 As per the decision which is raised by the judges in the court is relevant to the situation
which occurs with the Woollin as Woollin stated that the crime which he committed is
not intentionally (R V Woollin, 1999).
 He never wants that his child to die and also such act is committed in relation to loss of
control on aggression.

 As per the decision which is raised by other jury members in courts is relating to not
committing such act with intention, and thus imposing harsh punishment is not required
against Woollin to prove him offender in term of law.
 It is described under section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009. It mainly covers
the matters relating to The defence of the Loss of control — Voluntary manslaughter.
CONCLUSION:
From the above study, the report concludes the matters relating to committing offences
under the Diminished responsibility. In this, the case of R V Waitrose in which Charles Waitrose
is the respondent against whom the case is filed regarding committing murder of his daughter.
The matter is firstly raised under the first ground of appeal in which the appeal is made regarding
examining the facts against which the crime is committed. In respect of not getting adequate
judgement from the first appeal, the respondent i.e. Charles Waitrose request for the second
appeal under the supreme court. In this, they also provide various reference to the cases which is
similar to the cases and thus demanded that judgement is to be made according to this
perspective.
As the laws also imposed in this situation that under homicide act, 1957 less punishment
is imposed upon the person who committed any illegal crime or affects the right of the parties
which results in causing death of that person. Thus, such acts are committed in relation to the
diminished responsibility which provide liberty to criminals to occurs minimum punishment.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Cross, N., 2020. Criminal Law for Criminologists: Principles and Theory in Criminal Justice.
Routledge.
Gardner, J., Green, L. and Leiter, B. eds., 2018. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law (Vol. 3).
Oxford University Press.
Graham, L. D., 2018. Austerity Policies as Crimes against Humanity: An Assessment of UK
Social Security Policy since 2008. QMLJ, 9, p.5.
Keiler, J. and Roef, D. eds., 2016. Comparative concepts of criminal law. Intersentia.
Rumbold, J., Morrison, I. and Riha, R., 2016. Criminal law and parasomnias: Some legal
clarifications. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine. 12(08). pp.1197-1198.
Online
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland. 1993. Online. Available through: <http://www.e-
lawresources.co.uk/Airedale-N-H-S--Trust-v-Bland.php>
R V Latimer. 1886. Online. Available through: <http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-
Latimer.php>
R V Woollin. 1999. Online. Available through: <http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-
Woollin.php>
Re A (conjoined twins) [2001] 2WLR 480. 2001. Online. Available through: <http://www.e-
lawresources.co.uk/Re-A-(conjoined-twins).php>