Criminal Law: Liability for Murder, GBH, and Sexual Offenses

This report analyzes a complex criminal law case involving a volatile relationship, infidelity, and violent crimes. The scenario begins with Dom suspecting his wife Jess of having an affair with Nick, leading to a confrontation where Dom strangles Jess to death. Subsequently, Nick seeks revenge, attacking Dom and committing sexual assault. The report delves into the criminal liabilities of both Dom and Nick, examining the elements of murder, including actus reus and mens rea, and the potential defenses available to Dom, such as loss of control and diminished responsibility. It also addresses Nick's liability for grievous bodily harm and rape. The analysis references relevant case law and legislation, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles involved and the potential consequences for each individual involved.

Criminal Law

Contents
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..............................................................................................................................................3
Case scenario...........................................................................................................................................3
Criminal law............................................................................................................................................4
Law of murder.........................................................................................................................................4
Criminal liability of Dom........................................................................................................................5
Defenses available in case of crime of murder........................................................................................6
Criminal liability of Nick........................................................................................................................7
Grievous or serious bodily harm..............................................................................................................8
Offence for sexual intercourse.................................................................................................................8
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................10
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................11

INTRODUCTION
Laws are the set of rules which are formulated and enforced in whole of the state. It is
essential that it is followed by every citizen otherwise it may give rise to the criminal liability.
There are mainly two types of laws which involves firstly the civil law which deals with dispute
relating to two private individuals and the second is criminal law which relates with criminal
offences and deals with dispute between private individual and the state. In United Kingdom,
especially in England and Wales, there is no codified criminal code but its enactment is often
attempted and recommended. It consists of many criminal offences which have been evolved
from the common law rather than specified in any statute. Criminal conduct is regarded as te
wrong which is committed against the whole community rather than an individual and the state
has the responsibility for its prevention (Amatrudo, 2018). There are many organizations such as
police, courts, prisons, etc. who are responsible to enforce the criminal law and prevent its
happening. The criminal law mainly concerns role of justice courts, application of statutory and
common law of criminal why any form of behavior is regarded as the criminal behavior. This
report is based on a case scenario and is aimed to highlight the criminal liability in the case.
MAIN BODY
Case scenario
Jess and Dom are in a volatile relationship from the last three years. Jess is having an
affair with its work colleague whose name is Nick. Dom have suspected that Jess is having the
affair with someone so one day he arrives at his workplace and waits outside the office. After
5.30pm, Dom sees that Jess is leaving office with Nick and he also sees that she is kissing Dom
passionately. Then Dom returns to the home and waits for her and when she arrives, he confront
her and also accuses her that she is having affair. Then afterwards, Jess says that she is leaving
Dom for Nick so he snaps her and also grabs her by throat. He also strangles Jess till she dies.
When Nick hears about the death of Nick, he avenges and follows Dom late at night when he
leaves home. When they both reaches the secluded location, Nick goes to Dom and throws it on
ground and pulls off its glasses and stamps on them in order to break them. Dom then is unable

to see clearly and feels disorientated. Nick produces the penknife and stabs on the thigh of Dom
and forces Dom to ground and has the sexual intercourse with Nick.
Criminal law
It is body of mechanism and principle which are designed to bring the suspect to the
justice by way of fair trails and acquit an innocent and punish and convict the guilty. The role of
criminal courts apart from punishing the wrongdoer and rendering justice to victim is that they
have the obligation to rehabilitate the offenders. It includes the legislation relating to the criminal
trails, police investigation and giving punishment. The judgments in criminal law are mainly
made in accordance with the principle of beyond reasonable doubt (Janet, 2020).
Law of murder
It is derived from the common law. Murder is meant as the unlawful killing of the
reasonable creature in Queen’s peace with the malice aforethought. The essentials of murder are-
 Unlawful killing- It means that causing death and unlawful killing can be present when
there is no justification for it such as self-defense. In the case of Airedale NHS Trust v.
Bland, the court held that when there is withdrawal of the life-saving treatment which
may sustain the life of patient in its best interest is not murder but injecting the drug
which can bring death of patient would constitute the offence of murder.
 Any reasonable creature- it includes the human being only. For removal of doubt, a baby
cannot come under this requirement until it is fully born.
 Under Queen’s peace- Under section 9 of the Offence Against the person Act of 1891,
the person is killed anywhere whether it is in England or wales or not, they can be
convicted and tried in England or Wales. Section 10 of this legislation removes the doubt
that the defendant has to be the subject of Queen.
 Malice aforethought- This means that there is intention to cause grievous harm to the
person or kill it. In the case of R v. Cunningham, the word malice aforethought is
misleading as it suggests the elements of ill will against the victim as well as some degree
of the premeditation (Duff, 2018).
There are two elements of the offence of murder which includes firstly the mens rea and secondly
actus reus. The former in the criminal law is mainly concerned with state of mind of defendant.

In simple words, mens rea means intention which requires highest level of fault. There are
usually two type of intention of which first is direct intent which exist in majority of cases. It
exists when the defendant embarks on conduct in order to bring such result which in fact comes.
The second form of intention is oblique intent which is complex and it mainly exist when the
defendant embark a conduct in order to bring the desired result while knowing that its
consequence may bring another result (Stahn, 2019).
Second element of criminal offence is actus reus which comprises of all elements of
crime other than state of mind. It consists of conduct, state of affair, result or omission.
In the offence of murder, the unlawful killing of the human being in Queen’s peace and
mens rea is the malice aforethought which is interpreted by the courts as the intention to cause
grievous bodily harm or intention to kill.
Criminal liability of Dom
In the given case scenario, Dom after knowing of the extra marital affair of Jess,
confronts her and snaps her. He even grabs Jess by throat and strangles her until she dies. In this,
Dom have committed the offence of murder. The essentials of the offence of murder are fulfilled
which includes the following-
 Unlawful killing- It is committed by and act or omission where the unlawful killing is
result of crime and its causation should also be established. Here, Dom have intentionally
caused death of Jess by grabbing her throat and strangling it till she dies. This shows that
there is an act of unlawful killing.
 Human being- The victim must be a human being. As Jess is a human being, the second
element of murder is also present.
 Queen’s peace- This essential excludes the killing of the alien enemies during war. Jess
has been killed by Dom in the Queen’s peace so all the above elements of actus reus of
murder are present in this scenario.
 Malice aforethought- This is the mens rea of murder. In the case of R v. Cunningham,
the jury convicted the defendant on the basis of fact that the intention of defendant to
knock the victim to ground and causing serious harm to it at the time of attack represents
the intention of defendant to kill the victim unlawfully (Child, Child and Ormerod, 2017).

Hence, Dom have intention to kill Jess as he initially snapped her and grabbed her throat
and strangled her till she could die which shows its intention to unlawfully kill her.
When talking about the elements of actus reus, there may be presence of any of the element
which includes firstly the conduct which must be criminal in nature such as perjury, rape, theft,
etc. second is result of the omission or act of defendant. It is said that the conduct may not be
criminal in nature but the result must be criminal. Example of result is murder, grievous bodily
harm, etc. Third is state of affair which may ‘being’ and not ‘doing’ and last is omission. In the
present case scenario, the result of the conduct of defendant proves the actus reus of Dom that is
to kill Jess which resulted in her murder.
Hence, from the above facts it can be seen that Dom have intentionally killed Jess by
stabbing on her thigh until she dies and this shows his intention to unlawfully kill. All the
elements of murder are fulfilled in this scenario which makes Dom liable under the offence of
murder. The punishment for murder under the common law of murder is life imprisonment.
Defenses available in case of crime of murder
There are many scenarios when the defendant may use the defenses of murder. Dom may
be subject to any of the defenses discussed below so that he can be subject to lesser punishment.
Some of them are discussed below-
Loss of control
This defense was available under Section 54 of Coroners and Justice Act, 2009 which
was enforced in the year 2010. Prior to coming of this defense, the killing was governed by
defense of provocation. It is a partial defense which is similar to the defense of provocation but t
is more restrictive. Section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009 provides that a person
may be convicted of manslaughter rather than the offence of murder of it killed a person and
there exist-
 Loss of the self- control.
 This loss had the qualifying trigger.

 The person of the sex and age of defendant have the similar degree of self- restraint and
tolerance and in such circumstances might have reacted in the similar way or same
manner as the defendant did.
It is not necessary that the loss of self- control has to be sudden (Gawliński, A., 2021).
Diminished Responsibility
This defense is mentioned under Homicide Act of 1957 and is modified under Coroners
and Justice Act of 2009. Under section 2 of the Homicide Act and modified by section 52 of the
Coroners and Justice Act, the defendant who wants to rely on this defense has to demonstrate the
following-
 An abnormality of the mental functioning which is caused by recognized medical
condition.
 It must provide the explanation as to the action or omission of defendant in being the
party to killing.
 It has substantially impaired the mental ability of defendant to wither form the rational
judgment, understand nature of its conduct or exercise its self- control (Cryer and Nell,
2020).
In the given case scenario, Dom can rely on the defense of self- control where after seeing
her wife with some other person and then while confronting her, Jess told Dom that she is
leaving him because of Nick. Dom lost its self- control which resulted in such act which resulted
in unlawful killing of Jess by Dom. Hence, Dom can take the defense of loss of self- control in
order to get reduced imprisonment for the offence of murder.
Criminal liability of Nick
In the given case scenario, when Nick got to know about the death of Jess, he follows
Dom at the night when he leaves from home. When they both reached the secluded location,
Nick throws Dom on the ground and took off its glass and broke them. After this, Dom was
unable to see clearly and felt disoriented. He the produces the penknife and then stabs in the
thigh of Dom and forced him on the ground and had sexual intercourse with him.

This clearly shows that Dom had the intention to cause the serious and grievous bodily
harm to Nick and after this; he forcefully did sexual intercourse with him. Under the law, Nick
shall be held liable for the offence of grievous bodily harm and the rape.
Grievous or serious bodily harm
This term used in the criminal law of UK where it is used to describe many different
forms of battery. It mainly refers to two crimes which are created by the section of 18 and 20 of
Offences against persons Act, 1861.
Section 18 states that any person who maliciously or unlawfully causes grievous harm to
body of other with the intention to do some serious harm or with the intention to prevent or resist
lawful apprehension of any person will be guilty of the offence of felony. It is a less serious
offence which has penalty of only 5 years of imprisonment (Dowds, 2020).
Section 20 of the statute provides that any person who maliciously or unlawfully wound
or inflict grievous bodily harm to other person, with or without any instrument or weapon will be
guilty of the offence of misdemeanor. It is more serious offence as it carries the imprisonment of
25 years (Rodenhäuser, 2018).
In the case of R v. Wilson, the court held that it shall constitute the grievous bodily harm
when the accused have inflicted violently and directly by assaulting victim and if the accused
have inflicted something with the intention that its direct application of the force to body of
victim will result in the force which is being violently applied to the victim’s body so there is
grievous bodily harm (Rackley and Auchmuty, 2018). In the current case scenario, Nick had
intentionally caused grievous bodily harm to Dom by inflicting the penknife on its thigh so that
he can get severely injured. The mens rea in this case is that Nick has intention to injure Dom
grievously and also had the intention to prevent or resist the lawful detainer of Dom so that he
cannot escape from the place.
Offence for sexual intercourse
It is a crime of the basic intent. The definition of rape has been given a broader meaning
by substituting section 1 of sexual offence act by section 142 of the Criminal justice and public
order of 1994. It is the offence for the man when it rapes any woman or other man at such time
that it knows that the person has not consented to intercourse. Under section 142, a man commits

the rape when it has sexual intercourse with the woman or other man and there was absence of
consent and the accused is aware that the consent is not present.
Under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, rape involves penetration of
vagina, mouth or anus by the penis. It is the indictable offence which carries the imprisonment of
life. There is absence of the consent to penetration and the accused is not of the reasonable belief
that the victim has given consent to it (Dudfield and et. al., 2017).
In the case of R v. K, it was unclear in the Court of Appeal as to whether the penetration was of
anus or vagina. The jury held that the accused is convicted for the offence if it sure that there is
non-consensual penetration of the person with its penis. Under the given case scenario, Nick
have forcefully conducted the sexual intercourse with Dom while making him severely injured
initially (Weinborn and et. al., 2017). The attempt of Nick to cause grievous bodily harm first
and then forcefully trying to commit sexual intercourse shows its intention to commit the sexual
offence of rape against Nick. Under the Sexual offence act and Criminal justice and public order
of 1994, Nick must be held criminally liable for the offence of rape with Nick.
Hence, as Nick has caused injury to Dom by inflicting penknife on its thigh which caused
hi grievously injured and also did sexual intercourse with him which makes him liable under the
Offences against the person Act for the offence of misdemeanor and under the Sexual Offence
Act for the offence of rape with same sex.

CONCLUSION
It is concluded from the above report that criminal law in UK mainly deals with
preventing the criminal offences which have been committed against the whole community. The
case scenario discussed in this report relates to two parties who have committed crimes. The first
party has committed the crime of murder which involves unlawful killing of the human being at
the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought. But the accused shall be subject to the defense of
loss of self- control. This defense shall be used by accused when it has lost its control and it is
qualifying trigger and the reasonable person would in the same situation react in such manner.
Another party is criminally liable for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm under section
18 and 20 of the offences against person act and the offence of rape under sexual offence act and
Criminal justice and public order of 1994 as it has forcefully conducted sexual intercourse with
the victim. Hence, it can be summarized that the criminal liability of both the parties are for
different offences and thus they must be subject to the requisite statutory punishment.

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.
Child, J.J., Child, J. and Ormerod, D., 2017. Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Essentials of
Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Cryer, R. and Nell, A., 2020. The philosophy of international criminal law. In Research
Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Dowds, E., 2020. Feminist Engagement with International Criminal Law: Norm Transfer,
Complementarity, Rape and Consent. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Dudfield, G., and et. al., 2017. The “power curve” of victim harm: targeting the distribution of
crime harm index values across all victims and repeat victims over 1 year. Cambridge Journal of
Evidence-Based Policing. 1(1), pp.38-58.
Duff, R.A., 2018. The realm of criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Gawliński, A., 2021. Perpetrators’ actions after a murder, in particular handling the corpse to
evade criminal responsibility-Discussion of study findings. Journal of Forensic and Legal
Medicine. 77. p.102099.
Janet, A., 2021. Dispute settlement and jurisdictional issues for law enforcement and judicial
cooperation in criminal matters under the EU–UK trade and cooperation agreement. New
Journal of European Criminal Law, p.2032284421996022.
Rackley, E. and Auchmuty, R. eds., 2018. Women's legal landmarks: celebrating the history of
women and law in the UK and Ireland. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Rodenhäuser, T., 2018. Organizing Rebellion: Non-state Armed Groups Under International
Humanitarian Law, Human Rights Law, and International Criminal Law. Oxford University
Press.
Stahn, C., 2019. A critical introduction to international criminal law. Cambridge University
Press.
Weinborn, C., and et. al., 2017. Hotspots vs. harmspots: Shifting the focus from counts to harm
in the criminology of place. Applied geography. 86. pp.226-244.