Assignment on Law - Problem scenario

Running head: LAW
LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1LAW
Problem scenario
Frank Thomas is a 26 years old person lived with his father and sister. His life throughout
from his childhood is very problematic. From his childhood days, he observed that his mother
was an alcoholic and has a tendency to indulge with young men sexually. In this way, she got
indulged with one of his father’s friends and leave the house with that person. After that incident,
he suffered from some psychological disorders but Frank recovered after taking medication and
proper treatment. He completed his studies successfully and get a job in a famous retail shop in
England. In that retail shop, he met a girl, namely, Stella Gomes. They become a very good
friend and after six months Frank proposed her which is also accepted by Stella. On the birthday
of Stella, to give a surprise, Frank went to her home. As the main door was open, so without
knocking he entered in the room of her girlfriend and found Stella with another boy while doing
intercourse. After seeing Frank, the boy ran away from that room but Stella was there. By this
incident, Frank remembered what his mother has done with his father and due to that Frank got
aggressive and took a vase, hit Stella on the head which led to serious injury. Without informing
the doctor and police, Frank left the place. Due to excessive bleeding led to the death of Stella.
Now many issues arise from the above-mentioned problem, such as:
i) Whether he committed murder;
ii) Whether mens rea, actus reus is involved in this case;
iii) Whether Frank has the intention to kill Stella.
For answering the above-mentioned case, the Criminal law of England needs to be discussed
with the support of several case laws similar to the given scenario.

2LAW
Solution
For discussing the solution, it is important to split this part into three segments:
Rule
Mens rea and Actus reus are very significant terms under western criminal law. Mens rea
and Actus reus, both the terms are derived from a famous Latin maxim. The maxim is ‘Actus
non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’. It means an activity done by an individual does not make that
individual guilty unless while doing this activity the mind of the individual is guilty1. Thus, it can
be said that the expression Mens rea refers to a guilty mind which also means an intention to
commit criminal activity. On the other hand, the expression Actus reus refers to a criminal
activity which means the voluntary movement of the body for committing a crime. In this regard,
several scholars are of the view that the fundamental difference between these terms is Mens rea
is the mental element of a crime and Actus reus is the physical element of a crime. Under
criminal law, four types of Mens rea has generally been observed, such as intention, negligence,
wildness and knowledge2.
1 Kamali, Elizabeth Papp. A Felonious State of Mind: Mens Rea in Thirteenth-and Fourteenth-Century England.
Diss. 2015.
2 Hossain, Mohammad Belayet, and Saida Talukder Rahi. "Murder: A Critical Analysis of the Common Law
Definition." (2018) Beijing L. Rev. 9: 460.

3LAW
Description: Difference between Mens rea & Actus reus
The meaning of murder is killing an individual illegally, not for private defence and such
illegal killing needs to involve malice intention. According to several scholars state off mind
plays an important role under the criminal law which helps to differentiate murder from various
kinds of illegal homicide. For instance, a manslaughter is a different form of illegal killing where
malice is missing but provocation plays a vital role3. However, involuntary manslaughter
involves illegal activity or wildness. Murder is considered to be a very serious crime which has a
great impact on the society at large. For this reason, the person committed such a crime needs to
be punished with severe punishment for prevention, rehabilitation or vengeance. Almost all over
the world, the individual who commits murder generally punished with a sentence of
imprisonment for life and where capital punishment, such as sentencing death punishment is
applicable, it may be conferred4.
3 Cryer, Robert, Darryl Robinson, and Sergey Vasiliev. An introduction to international criminal law and
procedure. (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
4 Seibold, Jeanne Hall. "The Felony-Murder Rule: In Search of a Viable Doctrine." (2017) The Catholic
Lawyer 23.2: 8.

4LAW
In R vs. Cunningham5 case, the complainant removed a gas meter for stealing money
inside which was connected with the neighbouring house and at the time of stealing money the
neighbour was sleeping in his property. Due to the removal of the gas poisonous gas leaked
which endangered the life of the neighbour. The defendant charged under section 23 of the
Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA), 1861. However, the conviction of the complainant
was quashed on the ground that there exists a difference between the terms ‘malicious’ and
‘wicked’. As per the court, the actual examination for malice was whether the respondent had
actual intent to cause injury or was wild as to the probability of causing predictable injury.
On the other hand, in R vs. Clinton6 case the defendant, namely, the wife Clinton killed
by him in their home as of her sexual unfaithfulness. The Crown Court sentenced him with life
imprisonment for a minimum period of 26 years. However, it was quashed after considering
diminished obligation by the defence. Clinton appealed to the higher court when it had been
ruled by the judge that there was not sufficient evidence regarding the loss of control for this
specific issue. The higher court held that if the sexual unfaithfulness was the only possible
trigger to the harmful activity, section 55 (6) (c) of the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009 must be
applied. The court was also stated that if there exist other situations, such as section 54 (1) (c)
and 54 (3), sexual unfaithfulness must be taken into consideration where it is essential to the
evidence as a full, is one of the issues which caused the loss of control to the defendant.
On the other hand, R vs. Blaue7 case, the offender stabbed the victim as she refused to
indulge with sexual intercourse with him. As she received severe injuries, a blood transfusion
5 R vs. Cunningham [1982] AC 566
6 R vs. Clinton [2013] QB 1
7 R vs. Blaue [1975] 61 Cr App R 271

5LAW
was needed for her survival. However, due to her religious views, she refused to accept a blood
transfusion despite knowing the fact that she would die. The victim died afterwards, and the
offender charged with manslaughter by way of reduced obligation. The court held that the reason
behind the death of the victim was the stab injury and not the refusal to accept medical treatment.
For omission, the ‘egg-shell skull’ rule had been applied instead of R vs. Roberts8 case rule.
Analysis
In this given scenario, Frank hit Stella when he saw her with another boy while doing
sexual intercourse. It means that Stella was sexually unfaithful and it is the reason for his loss of
control. Frank has no intention to kill her but after the incident, he did not inform police and
doctor.
By applying the rule of R vs. Cunningham9 case it has been observed that the malice of
Frank was wild as to the probability of causing predictable injury.
By applying the rule of R vs. Clinton10 case it has been observed that Frank lost his
control due to the sexual unfaithfulness of Stella.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be said that:
i) Frank committed involuntary manslaughter;
ii) Here Mens rea is not involved but Actus reus is involved; and
8 R vs. Roberts [1971] 56 Cr App R 95
9 R vs. Cunningham [1982] AC 566
10 R vs. Clinton [2013] QB 1

6LAW
iii) Frank did not have the intention to kill Stella.

7LAW
Bibliography
Books & Journals
Cryer, Robert, Darryl Robinson, and Sergey Vasiliev. An introduction to international criminal
law and procedure. (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
Hossain, Mohammad Belayet, and Saida Talukder Rahi. "Murder: A Critical Analysis of the
Common Law Definition." (2018) Beijing L. Rev. 9: 460.
Kamali, Elizabeth Papp. A Felonious State of Mind: Mens Rea in Thirteenth-and Fourteenth-
Century England. Diss. 2015.
Seibold, Jeanne Hall. "The Felony-Murder Rule: In Search of a Viable Doctrine." (2017) The
Catholic Lawyer 23.2: 8.
Cases
R vs. Blaue [1975] 61 Cr App R 271
R vs. Clinton [2013] QB 1
R vs. Cunningham [1982] AC 566
R vs. Roberts [1971] 56 Cr App R 95
Legislation
Coroners and Justice Act, 2009
Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861

8LAW