Manslaughter and Murder Case Analysis

This assignment delves into a complex legal case involving murder and manslaughter charges. It analyzes the actions of an individual named Charles who is responsible for multiple deaths, differentiating between intentional murder and unintentional manslaughter. The document explores various legal concepts such as direct and indirect intention, recklessness, and foresight of harm. Furthermore, it examines the specific circumstances surrounding each death, considering factors like foreseeability and criminal negligence. Ultimately, the analysis aims to determine Charles's culpability for each offense under relevant legal frameworks.

Principles Criminal Liability

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY.............................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
English Criminal Law may be served as a jurisdiction of England and Wales that
deals with the serious crimes as well as their consequences. According to Criminal Liability
Act (1977), crime may be presented as an offence which is in against to the whole
community1. The present report is based on the case situation of Charles who has inserted
explosive device in Brian’s car. The main objective of Charles behind including such device
in the car is to scare Brian. However, due to such device serious injury was suffered by Brian,
PC Khan and Feni which in turn resulted into their death. Hence, in this, report will shed light
on the extent to which Charles is accountable or obliged for murder and manslaughter.
MAIN BODY
According to Edward Coke, murder may be defined as an activity of unlawful killing
of a reasonable person in being and under the king’s (queen) peace with malice aforethought,
express or implied. In this, the first part of the definition pertaining to unlawful killing of
reasonable person is recognized as Actus Reus of murder, whereas aspects pertaining to
express or implied comes under the category of Mens Rea2.
Manslaughter implies for the unlawful killing but it does not involve an intention in
relation to serious harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life. Under manslaughter,
there is the absence of malice aforethought which in turn involves less moral blame rather
than either first or second degree murder3. Manslaughter is also recognized as a serious crime
1 Criminal Law Act (1977). 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45/part/I>.
2 Murder. 2017. [Online]. Available through: < https://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m150.htm >.
3 Criminal Law – Manslaughter. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-manslaughter>.

but punishment for the same is less than as in the case for murder. Manslaughter can be
distinguished into two types such as voluntary and involuntary.
In this, voluntary manslaughter implies for the situation when a person kills other
person in the heat of passion that occurred by provocation. In other words, under voluntary
manslaughter, heat of passion means killers may kill intentionally but in the emotional
context it is recognized as a mitigating factor4. This in turn closely influences the level of
their blameworthiness. On the other side, involuntary manslaughter refers to the situation of
unintentional killing which in turn results of recklessness and criminal negligence. It includes
crime where death of victim is unintended5.
Given case situation presents that Charles has performed unlawful act by pacing an
explosive device in Brian’s Car with the motive to frighten him. Along with this, case
situation clearly entails that before placing bomb in Brian’s car Charles had watched Brian’s
flat for several days. During this, Charles found that there was a bar that visited by several
people in the warm evening. Hence, bomb has destroyed car of Brian and resulted into his,
PC Khan as well as Femi’s death. Thus, in this, the main issue is to ascertain the level to
which Charles is held criminally liable for either murder or manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter can further be distinguished into three types such as
constructive, gross negligence and Cunningham reckless. Constructive manslaughter is also
considered as an unlawful act where activities performed by the defendant party may result
into death. Referring the case of R v. Simon Kennedy [2007] UKHL 386, it can be presented
that for considering the activity as constructive manslaughter there is a need to prove that act
committed by the defendant party is unlawful. Further, it also needs to entail or prove that act
must be dangerous and substantial cause or reason of death. From evaluation, it has also
found that defendant party will be guilty of as per different involuntary manslaughter.
4 Gualco, B. and et,al., 2015. Voluntary manslaughter between immigrants: authors and
victims. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY. 8(4). pp.231-240.
5 Weaver, R. L. and Friedlanad, S. I., 2014. UNINTENTIONAL KILLINGS (NEGLIGENT
HOMICIDE, INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, DEPRAVED-HEART AND FELONY
MURDER): DRIVING WHILE'INTEXTICATED': TEXTING, DRIVING, AND
PUNISHMENT. Tex. Tech L. Rev. 47. pp.101-939.
6 R v Kennedy [2007] 3 WLR 612 House of Lords

On the basis of given scenario, unlawful act was committed by Charles by placing
bomb or explosive device in Brian’s car with the aim to frighten him. Such undesirable or
illegal activity of Charles has resulted into the murder or manslaughter of Brian, PC Khan
and Feni. Hence, Charles activity in relation to Brian comes under the category of Actus
Reus. Moreover, Brian death is considered as unlawful killing of reasonable person is being
under the Queen’s peace. However, it is highly difficult to prove Mens Rea, an intention to
do particular crime.
Case presents that an intention of Charles behind placing explosive device is to
frighten Brian. Thus, direct intention of Charles cannot be established regarding murder. This
aspect shows that there is no existence or prevalence of Mens Rea. However, there is
possibility that Charles had an indirect obligation. It presents that prohibited or unlawful act
was presented by Charles which in turn resulted into particular consequence or result. Hence,
in this, there is a need to assess to assess that the death of Brian, PC Khan and Feni will have
been intended by Charles. Overall case presents that, death of such innocent parties may not
have desired by Charles.
Under R v Woollin (1998)7, House of Lord held that conviction related to murder is
substituted with manslaughter. In this, aspects related to oblique intention was modified by
the House of Lords. On the basis of such aspect, if defendant found some possibility of
particular undesirable results then it presents an intention of wrongful act. In this, question is
that whether Charles foresaw the results of Brian’s injury. Thus, by taking into account
overall situation it can be presented that Charles knew that there is the possibility that Brian
will suffer injury because time for which explosive device detonated he usually went to
office. Hence, practically, it was possible that Brian would be in car when the bomb blow off
or exploded.
Hence, keeping all such aspects in mind it can be stated that Charles is found to guilty
of Brian’s murder. In this, both the aspects such as ‘Actus Reus’ and Mens Rea have been
proved.
However, Charles was unaware that PC Khan, new community constable, will meet
with Brian when the explosive device was blow off. Hence, there was the absence of
foreseeabilty and virtual certainty of PC Khan’s death. In this, no intention of death of PC
7 R v Woollin [1999] AC 82

Kahn was finding by the jury. Thus, referring all such aspects it can be mentioned that
Charles is not held accountable for PC Khan’s death.
On the basis of Criminal Damage Act (1971), a person shall be guilty of an offence if
he/she destroys property without any legal or valid reason. It is highly concerned with an
intention to destroy or damage property8. Along with this, person is guilty of for the offence
or reckless that endangers the life of another. In the concerned case, bomb which was
exploded by Charles in Brain’s car. This in turn endangers property of Brian such as car and
his life as well.
In the context of constructive manslaughter, for finding Charles shall be guilty of
there are mainly three elements that must be proved. First element states that illegal act has
performed by Charles. Further, second element entails need in relation to proving that such
unlawful act was dangerous. As per the third criteria, there is a requirement to prove that
unlawful act was the substantial or the main cause of death9. Case of Lamb presents that
illegal act was performed by defendant through destroying or damaging property. In this, to
prove the act as unlawful there must be mens rea or intention of doing wrong.
Larking (1943)10 presents that it is inevitable to assess the risk of harm associated
with the undesirable act. Hence, Charles will have assessed that whether PC khan and Feni
was present at the time of bomb explosion then they probably suffer some harm. In this, death
of Brian was the result of undesirable act performed by Charles. The main imitation of such
evaluation is that the applied test objective in nature rather than subjective. Thus, there is a
requirement to assess whether Charles have admitted that explosive device which was setting
off by him may harm to others or not. This aspect shows that here the main aspect is the
realization of reasonable person. Thus, it can be mentioned that act performed by Charles was
both unlawful and dangerous. However, third element is satisfied only in the case of Brian’s
death over others such as PC Khan and Feni.
Given case situation presents that when bomb which was placed in Brian’s car
exploded then Femi suffered severe lacerations. Due to such bomb blast, Brian and PC Khan
died. However, cited case presents that Femi has phobia from needles and he refused doctor
8 Herring, J., 2014. Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press.
9 Storey, T., 2017. Unlawful and Dangerous: A Comparative Analysis of Unlawful Act Manslaughter in English,
Australian and Canadian Law. The Journal of Criminal Law. 81(2).
10 R v Larkin (1942) 29 Cr App R 18

in relation to administering life-saving blood transfusion. Hence, it is one of the main reasons
due to which Femi died.
In the case of Balue, R v [1975] CA, defendant’s action was finding guilty &
convicted because the wound was an operative cause of death. Under this, policy of law has
been recognized which in turn shows that individual who uses violence or do wrongful act
with victim must take their victim as they find them11. Such principle or policy is highly
applied on the physical as well as mental characteristics of the victim. In this, court or jury
rarely give judgement that response of victim was reasonable. Hence, such case presents the
aspects of diminishes responsibility and guilty of manslaughter.
Case of Smith, R v [1959] CMAC12 entails that, causation must be in the form of
operating and substantial cause. Such case deals with the aspect of causation and homicide
which shows that stab wound was an operating cause of death.
From assessment, it has identified, as per Balue, R v [1975] CA13, that Feni’s death
occurred due to her own action but it does not break causation. Further, related case situation
lays emphasis on the applicability of skull rule. Considering such case, it can be stated that in
the concerned situation, there is the existence of ‘novus actus intervenies’. On the basis of
such aspect Feni’s intervention in the treatment is also recognized as the cause of death which
in turn diminishes the accountability of Charles. However, as per the skull rule defendant part
is held liable when victim suffered from physical or mental condition which in turn makes
him / her vulnerable. Further, considering the case of Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 187314
and R V Dalloway (1847)15 it can be depicted that operative cause is not only the reason of
specific consequence. In the case of Charles and Feni, there is an existence of operative
cause that presents behind the death of Feni, there are mainly two reasons such as Charles
11 Criminal Law cases. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <
https://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_01_actus_causation.htm#Dalloway, R v
(1847) Erle J>.
12 R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35
13 R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 Court of Appeal
14 R v Benge (1865)
15 R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox 273

and Feni’s negligence. Hence, by taking into account all the above depicted aspects it can be
stated that Charles is held accountable for the manslaughter of Feni.
The above depicted aspects show that policy considerations are undertaken by the
court while deciding the issues of causation. On the basis of House of Lord, inclusion of
explosive device in one’s car is not socially acceptable. In this, Charles would not liable or
guilty for the murder or manslaughter of Feni due to an intervening event. Moreover, in the
case of Feni due to the phobia his death was occurred.
Mens rea of involuntary manslaughter can also be proved on the basis or aspect of
recklessness. In the context of Cunningham, defendant party considers the risk aspect but still
moved ahead. Considering the case of Lidar (2000)16 it can be depicted that irresponsible
behaviour or recklessness may be served as a basis for the mens rea of involuntary
manslaughter. In this case, Court of appeal entails that for defendant party will be held
accountable when risk pertaining to serious injury or death occurring is foreseen. Along with
this, if defendant has assessed risk which is either the most likely or highly probable to occur
then he/she would be liable.
Along with this, in the case of R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 39617, Court described
malicious as an actual intention pertaining to harm that in fact was done. Further, malicious
also imply for recklessness which in turn entails the probability of occurring particular harm
or not. Hence, in the context of Feni’s case, Charles foresaw the risk of serious injury to
others at the time when bomb was detonated. Moreover, when Charles observed Brian’s flat
from several days then he found that large number of people come outside at the time of
warm summer evenings. On the same day, when bomb was detonated then Charles thought
that how pleasant the evening was which shows that risk foresaw. However, Charles may not
have foreseen that serious physical injury or loss was highly probable to Feni. Thus, referring
all such aspects it can be depicted that it is not likely that Charles would be convicted of
Cunningham Reckless Manslaughter.
16 R v Lidar [1999]
17 R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 Court of Appeal

CONCLUSION
From overall evaluation, it has been concluded that Charles is recognized as guilty for
the murder of Brian. Further, it has been articulated that Charles has an indirect intention in
relation to killing Brian. On the other side, death of PC Khan and Feni is considered as
involuntary manslaughter. Moreover, both PC Khan and Feni were killed by Charles
unintentionally due to their irresponsible behaviour as well as criminal negligence. Besides
this, it can be inferred that bombs result are foreseeable pertaining to Feni. Moreover, at the
time of placing bomb Charles knew that several people visit that is bar situated near to the
parking area. Thus, by taking into account all the cases cited and present situation it can be
said that Charles would not held liable for the death of PC Khan and Feni.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Gualco, B. and et,al., 2015. Voluntary manslaughter between immigrants: authors and
victims. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY. 8(4). pp.231-240.
Herring, J., 2014. Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press.
Storey, T., 2017. Unlawful and Dangerous: A Comparative Analysis of Unlawful Act
Manslaughter in English, Australian and Canadian Law. The Journal of Criminal
Law. 81(2).
Weaver, R. L. and Friedlanad, S. I., 2014. UNINTENTIONAL KILLINGS (NEGLIGENT
HOMICIDE, INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, DEPRAVED-HEART AND
FELONY MURDER): DRIVING WHILE'INTEXTICATED': TEXTING, DRIVING,
AND PUNISHMENT. Tex. Tech L. Rev. 47. pp.101-939.
Online
Criminal Law – Manslaughter. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-manslaughter>.
Criminal Law Act (1977). 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45/part/I>.
Criminal Law cases. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <
https://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_01_actus_causation.htm#Dalloway, R v
(1847) Erle J>.
Murder. 2017. [Online]. Available through: < https://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m150.htm >.