Evaluation of Rafiq’s Liability towards Murder

This report evaluates the case of Mr. Rafiq who is charged with the murder of his wife Saara. It examines the elements of Actus Reus and Mens Rea to determine Rafiq's liability.

MURDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
Evaluation of Rafiq’s liability towards murder...........................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Murder as per the English Common Law is an act of offence categorised as the most serious
form of homicide where the intention of one person is to kill another person or cause serious
body damages (Kesselring, 2016). The present report will evaluate the case of Mr. Rafiq who is
the defendant in the present case and have been charged with the murder of his wife Saara.
MAIN BODY
Evaluation of Rafiq’s liability towards murder
First of all elements of Actus Reus can be evaluated in context of Rafiq where the elements
of conduct can be evaluated. Actus Reus basically indicates the physical movement and the
bodily actions of the defendant that led to murder of the victim in the present case (Cunningham
and et.al., 2018). These are more broadly categorised as the arguments in favour or in defence of
the criminal. Primary cause in case of murder is willingness or voluntariness to murder someone.
In the present case, there is no evidence that Rafiq intentionally wanted to murder Saara. First the
prosecution needs to prove that Rafiq was guilty and then further argument can be done on the
basis of evidence and arguments presented by defence (Dropuljic, 2017). Rafiq simply found the
thought of losing his partner unbearable and hence acted out of pure instinct to keep Saara with
him only.
It has also been clearly stated that Rafiq is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and
has not quite fully recovered from the experience. It is medically stated that the patients of PTSD
lack any significant control over their own emotions and actions and when they are experiencing
any emotions or feeling too significantly, it might significantly impair their capability to
rationally think as well (Smith, 2017). This was exactly the case with Rafiq at the present
moment where he failed to take any rational decision and did whatever seemed plausible to him
in order to stop his wife from leaving him. Therefore, it can be said that the actions or present
state of Rafiq was not very reasonable.
Further the causation aspect can be discussed in relation to Actus Reus where the act or
omission of defendant must act as the operating cause of death of the victim (Tartakoff, 2018). In
the present case, the weed killer was predominantly used to simply make Saara a bit ill so that
she would not leave. Additionally, it can also be said that there are no studies or evidences that
indicate that the weed killer gives 100% guarantee to kill any human being because many weed
killers don’t even affect the humans due to lack of any microorganisms in humans.
3

The analysis of the different elements above indicates that at present on the face of Actus
Reus, there does not seem to be any fact that proves the guilt of the defendant i.e. Mr. Rafiq.
Now elements pertaining to Mens Rea can be evaluated in context of Rafiq, the defendant
where the intention of wrongdoing or criminal intent will be discussed so that the state of the
convict at the time of murder can be evaluated (Amatrudo, 2018). These are arguments against
the act performed by Rafiq where he will be held liable for his own actions.
It can be evidently said that actions of Mr. Rafiq were reckless. Despite being under the
control of red hot rage that he was feeling, he knew at the back of his mind that use of weed
killer is reckless and careless thing to do because this is not a human friendly component. It has
already been discussed that to be convicted of murder, it is necessary to prove the ill intention to
kill somebody or cause severe bodily harm that can result in potential death. In the present case
similarly, it is evident that the use of weed killer can act as a potential tonic for inflicting serious
body harm even if not kill the person (Liem, Krüsselmann and Eisner, 2020). This provides
enough evidence against the defendant Rafiq to prove his guilt. However there are certain
additional points that can be attributed to the present case.
The intention of Rafiq to cause grievous bodily harm to Saara can be proved against him. It
can be clearly established that the use of weed killers is not considered safe for the humans.
Rafiq was well aware about this but still chose to go on with his plan and mixed a “little” in her
soup knowingly. This directly puts the life of Saara on jeopardy and in this case, the claim of the
act under which the intention to cause body harm can be proved to be true. Despite his irrational
thinking that is justified under the PTSD, he did not try to communicate with her even once.
The last argument that can be presented against the innocence of Mr. Rafiq, the defendant
is the intention to kill. In order for a murder to be validated, it is necessary to prove the intention
to kill and earlier it was proved that Rafiq did not wanted to kill Saara but only cause her bodily
harm but however, this can be contradicted (Wiest, 2016). It is evident that Saara had put in a lot
of efforts after Rafiq was found to be suffering from PTSD. When things became beyond her
control she decided to leave him. Now as Rafiq has himself admitted he was hot with rage at the
moment when he decide to make Saara ill but psychology says that when a person is in hot rage,
then he is not rational and cannot plan anything. This indicates the Rafiq along with his PTSD
must not be acting in a rational manner and hence the chances that he had simply illness in mind
by the use of painkiller and rather planned to kill Saara for once and all.
4

The presentation of these arguments above is enough to indicate the guilty conscious of
Rafiq in the present case of R vs. Rafiq.
Based on the positive as well as negative arguments that were presented in the present case
of Rafiq who has been charged guilty for the murder of his wife Saara, one last thing needs to be
done is to establish contemporaneity. In order to establish crime, it is first necessary to prove
that the Actus Reus occurred at the same time as Mens Rea (McDiarmid, 2018). If the Mens Rea
to kill wife would have occurred to Rafiq, he would have done it at the same time and the
quantity of weed killer used would not have been little. The Actus Reus was actually much later
in the case of Rafiq in the evening and this indicates that the time of Actus Reus does not match
with the time of Mens Rea.
CONCLUSION
The evaluation of the different aspects associated with the case above indicates that the
overall results can be drawn in favour of Mr. Rafiq where he cannot be proved to be guilty with
the murder if Saara. It can also be concluded that despite the faulty actions of Rafiq at the
moment, they were purely with the intention of retaining Saara with him and he intended to
cause bodily harm to her only. Therefore Actus Reus does not coincide with the Mens Rea and
hence the lack of correlation of the both reinforces the emphasis that the intention of Rafiq was
not to murder Saara. But the use of weed killer in the present case still cannot be justified and
especially for a patient of PTSD who has still not regained control over his emotions.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Amatrudo, A., 2018. Organisations and Their Enterprise in UK Criminal Law and in
International Law. In Criminal Actions and Social Situations (pp. 89-115). Palgrave
Macmillan, London.
Cunningham, S., and et.al., 2018. Sex work and occupational homicide: Analysis of a UK
murder database. Homicide studies. 22(3). pp.321-338.
Dropuljic, S.A., 2017. The Classification of Murder and Slaughter in the Justiciary Court from
1625-1650: Malice, Intent and Premeditation-Food Forethought. Aberdeen Student L.
Rev.. 7. p.121.
Kesselring, K.J., 2016. No Greater Provocation: Adultery and the Mitigation of Murder in
English Law. Law & Hist. Rev.. 34. p.199.
Liem, M., Krüsselmann, K. and Eisner, M., 2020. From Murder to Imprisonment: Mapping the
Flow of Homicide Cases—A Systematic Review. Homicide Studies,
p.1088767920924447.
McDiarmid, C., 2018. Killings short of murder: Examining culpable homicide in Scots law.
In Homicide in Criminal Law (pp. 21-36). Routledge.
Smith, J., 2017. Murder.
Tartakoff, P., 2018. From conversion to ritual murder: re-contextualizing the circumcision
charge. Medieval encounters. 24(4). pp.361-389.
Wiest, J.B., 2016. Casting cultural monsters: Representations of serial killers in US and UK
news media. Howard Journal of Communications. 27(4). pp.327-346.
6

7