Criminal Law Case Study: Homicide, Theft, and Sexual Offences in UK

This case study analyzes criminal liability in a scenario involving homicide, theft, and sexual offenses under UK law. It examines Colin and Bilal's potential liability for homicide, considering gross negligence manslaughter and the Homicide Act 1957, referencing case law like Andrew v DPP. The study also assesses Erin's liability for theft under the Theft Act 1968, focusing on the elements of the offense. Additionally, it explores Simeon's potential liability for sexual offenses, considering the presence of a 'Sexual Consent App' and Anita's lack of clear consent, and whether Colin's actions were justified. The analysis concludes with a comprehensive evaluation of each individual's potential criminal culpability based on the provided facts and relevant legal principles.

Applied criminal law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY ..................................................................................................................................3
Colin and Bilal liability for homicide, .......................................................................................4
Erin's liability for the theft .........................................................................................................7
Simeon's liability for sexual offences ........................................................................................9
Conclusion:....................................................................................................................................10
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................11

INTRODUCTION
Criminal laws are the laws that has been defined as those offense which helps in
regulating the apprehension, charging and trial over suspected persons which makes penalties
with mode of treatment applicable to convicted offenders. These laws has been helping in
forming proper legal structure which makes balance to be created within society. Such laws
helps in creating guidelines and rules helping in creating appropriate laws making criminals to be
punished. These laws covers different kinds of aspects that is related to punishment which is
based upon criminal perspectives. Scope of these laws are wider as they have tendencies to
impact society at large. This hold dynamic nature as using the laws criminal perspective is
covered. In this file things covered is based upon aspects related to criminal law and various
offense of it with the help of case law. Also questions regarding case scenario is required to be
answered effectively.
MAIN BODY
Case scenario: In the case as part of gesture over the service the guests are entitled to
borrow jet skis which has to be used within designated area of water which has been marked out.
On arriving guests is required to sign an agreement over terms one of the guest Erin has ride jet
skis beyond the permitted area and seeing friend on shore abandons the jet ski without tethering
the dock. This made jet skis face damages. Colin has been working on the yacht with his sister
Anita. On one evening Anita is out with friends at a restaurant on shore. There Simon met her
and offered her drink. Then they started talking to each other and after some time Anita was
willing to go back to the shack but Simeon told her to come hotel with him she agreed
reluctantly. She realized that she slept in room and ran away in tears. Upon haring his sister cry
Colin incensed at the end of shift he goes to confront Simeon. In an unapologetic way Simeon
fight with spills out onto dock which made him drown within water. Bilal is the chef on the yacht
and one night after preparing and evening meal for the guest he retire to bed. Later pizza was
ordered by guest late in night Anita was preparing the pizza as Bilal was resting but she got
distracted which resulted in causing oven on fire and sounds fire alarm. In order to control fire
Bilal leaped out of bed but it become out of control causing death of Victor because of smoke.

In police investigation it was marked out that Erin is not aware of the condition of hire.
Simeon's mobile was checked which had Sexual Consent App to be appeared for having record
of “Sexual consent app” which appeared to have record another user which has been identified as
Anita has paired phone with Simeon's and provide consent upon sexual activity. Anita said she is
too drunk to recall and would never had consent for intercourse. Colin says that he completely
lost the plot of Simon's treatment
Based on the facts certain questions arise which are
Colin and Bilal liability for homicide,
Issue:
After analysing the above scenario the first issue that has been marked out is based upon
Colin and Bilal liability for homicide. The issue is based upon criminal law aspects which is
based upon gross negligence of manslaughter.
Rule:
The rule that has been identified in relation to the issue is base upon homicides which is
covered within criminal and also under Homicide Act 1957. This act is mainly developed in
order to enact partial reforms of Common law offence of murder within English law through
making abolishment of constructive malice in limited circumstances. The reform also deals with
partial defence of provocation regarding diminishing responsibility. Further, the case deals with
gross negligence of manslaughter that is form of involuntary manslaughter within which an
defendant has been ostensibly acting lawfully. Involuntary manslaughter also arise where
defendant has caused death but neither intended over causing death nor having intention upon
causing bodily harm and thus lacks means rea of murder. Under it constructive manslaughter
exists which make constructive manslaughter exists making defendant commit an unlawful act
which has resulted in death and amounts to gross negligence of manslaughter. This is not
dependent upon demonstrating an unlawful act which has bee n committed. Also gross
negligence of manslaughter can be said to apply in the case where defendant commits lawful
action in a way that it render action of criminal. Gross negligence of manslaughter differ from
constructive manslaughter which has been committed by omission. In this case court should
apply test that is Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt which is used in order to
prove that accused has committed an unlawful act, the act must be unlawful for a reason other

then the negligence of its performance. The act must be likely over causing harm or more than a
trifling nature.
Analysis:
English law contains homicide offences means those acts involving death of other person.
In this crime has been considered in relation to homicide which is takes place after making
victim's legally recognized in relation over death that has been caused. There is also the usually
uncontroversial requirement that the victim be under the "Queen's peace". The death has been
caused for making link over actions in relation over defendant. As the abolition of the year and
day rule there is no maximum time period upon any act being committed. The defendant's acts
must be causally linked to the death. Since the year and a day rule was abolished, there is no
maximum time limit between any act and the death of the victim, as long as the former caused
the latter. Murder and manslaughter are the two most common types of homicide. Murder
involves either the intent to murder or the purpose to do great bodily damage. This is voluntary
manslaughter if the intention is present but there are mitigating elements such as loss of control,
lessened accountability, or the execution of a suicide pact. Involuntary manslaughter is divided
into two categories. For starters, it might be "constructive" or "unlawful act" manslaughter, in
which the death was caused by a less serious but essentially criminal and dangerous act. Further,
alternative manslaughter can be caused due to gross negligence has been within which defendant
has broken duty of care upon the victim where the breach has lead to death which amounts to
criminal liability. Under it there are general features are present which are death is a irremediable
harm that is dealing with particularly within English law. This can be understood with the help of
example the crime of murder has been uniquely carrying upon mandatory sentencing in life
imprisonment that is regardless over degree which makes defendant to be morally culpable that
has been provided within the law. Another example in relation over this feature is that injury
caused during due to dangerous driving for which maximum sentence over two years. This is can
increase to fourteen years which is based upon nature of crime committed. In homicides three
elements are included which is defines about various features that is victim must be legally
defined as human being, their death should be caused through an act of omission which is done
by one or more than one human being and its should take place within the jurisdictional area of
court. Birth and death: Under this situation that has been explained is based upon pregnancy

which is protected by law of homicide which makes abortion to be an offence if it is done
without the concern of an individual. In this offences is based upon creating harm to an pregnant
women. In this the victim must be of independence existence that has been covered within the
law. Even where the foetus is viable and has survived or born before the offence has been
committed. The confused rationale appears to match the complicated moral and biological
distinction on which it is based there is huge social significance placed upon birth and thus the
law is unlikely to change.
The normal rules in relation over causation is applied as they become when compared
over moral issues which has been explained with the help of cases they are R v Pagett in this
case the defendant was guilty in relation to manslaughter of a hostage which was used by him as
human shield and was killed within police return fire against defendant. Further the case shows
explanation in relation to “free, voluntary and informed” which was proved in relevancy with R
v Kennedy within which defendant was acquitted. The act is known as "novus actus
interveniens". The judgement of several judges within different case that includes R v adams
appear to confuse casualties with motive where strong moral imperative to clear the defendant
with casualty of doubt rather than mental element. As it is an significant principle that every one
has to die at some point of time then even murder is mere acceleration of death. In the case of
Adam the question regarding life shortening point care was approached and need of suitable
reason which makes distinguishing the doctor from any other murderer. This creates special
defence.
Conclusion:
After analysing the fact it can be concluded that Colin was working on the yacht and after
haring his sister Anita crying he went to confront Simon in a argumentative manner which made
Simon indulge into fight and caused his death due to drowning. Since the intention behind the
face off was based upon argument which caused because of heat of argument. This made liability
of Colin occurred as per the Homicide act 1957. Then in the other scenario it can be observed
that Bilal is the head chef on the board and was sleeping at the time when order come which
made Anita cooked the food. In the case Bilal does not hold liability as he was resting and was
not aware about order. Also he was trying to help on controlling the fire but it become out of
control. In the scenario Anita holds liability in relation over death of person by smoke. Bilal does
not hold liability for the incident as his motive was to control the fire not to cause death due to it.

In these case involuntary man slaughter has taken place which makes both Colin and Bilal liable
upon manslaughter. In order to prove this relevant case law is Andrew v DPP within which the
appellant has drove a van above the speed limit and overtook another car which made an
pedestrian stuck over vehicle and killed him. In this case court held that his conviction for
manslaughter was marked out. In this case Lord Atkins over the degree of negligence considered
as gross negligence manslaughter. Also Lord said that “ simple lack of care such as will of
constituting civil liability is not enough for the purpose of Criminal law. It should make
establishment done upon felony in relation to negligence. Through applying the test within the
case it has been marked out that negligence is present because of unlawful act that resulted in
making man slaughter committed by Anita but not Bilal since he was not present when the
unlawful action took place. In case of Colin the unlawful act has been committed by Colin which
made Simone lost his life. This makes Colin and Bilal liable to involuntary men slaughter.
Erin's liability for the theft
Issue:
As per the facts of the above case it can be marked out that issue raised is based Erin's
liability for theft. The issue is related to theft which is related over criminal law of United
Kingdom.
Rule:
The offence related to theft is covered within section1(1) of Theft Act 1968 that has been
provided in relation over person guilty for theft if dishonesty appropriate property belonging to
another with an intention to make permanently deprived to other. In the section 2-6 of theft act
1968 provides definition of each element of theft within section 7 that has been setting out
maximum penalty for theft of 7 years. Also in this actus reus of theft is based upon
appropriation, property and belonging to another. The mens rea of theft contains dishonesty,
intention to permanently withhold. As per the act person is guilty of criminal offence regarding
theft of they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it. This is contrary in relation to section1(1) of Theft Act
1968. In order to find defendant guilty upon committing theft its is required to prove that a
person has committed act of dishonesty. In the act appropriation of property is required to be
considered dishonest if, a person has taken possession of an item of property which believes that
they are having legal right which is deprived of other and if the property has been appropriated

with the belief that other party is having consent to appropriation. In case when not being an
trustee or personal representative a person takes possession of property believing that reasonable
steps has been taken which cannot be discovered by owner. When determination has been done
in relation to theft or dishonesty within the case of theft, courts consider about the 'Ghosh test'
which is deciding about the defendant acted dishonestly. This is a test as to whether the
defendant was dishonest in relation to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people.
Under the Criminal law of UK 'objective tests is used in order to define about dishonest
intention. Then in other stage convicting an individual is done which is determined through facts
of the case. The last stage is based upon making defendant realised about reasonableness in
relation to action of an individual. The act is based upon two types of test which helps in making
justice proved in effective manner regarding theft.
Analysis:
Appropriation under the Theft Act 1968 in this an person assumes about the right of an
owner of the property that is deemed to be appropriate. If a person assumes the rights of an
owner over property, they are deemed to have appropriated it. This includes cases where they
obtain the property without stealing and later assume such rights by keeping or dealing with the
property as the owner is not going to be amounted to theft and has no right to make transfer
done. In relation to over theft its cases are heard within magistrate court that has been sentencing
for theft which is maximum of 6 months of imprisonment. On the indictment within the crown
court the sentence which is maximum of 7 years imprisonment. Relevant case related to theft is
R v Morris in the case conjoined appeals involved the switching of price label within
supermarket. Further, Morris has been arrested after paying lower sum over certain items.
Burnside has been arrested before paying for goods and the question that has arise in front of
Lords is whether an appropriation is required for assumption of all rights of an owner and also is
appropriate upon point of time which makes occurrence made. It was held within the case that
there is no need of making appropriator done upon rights of an owner. The appropriation took
place when there has been adverse interference over the rights of an owner that is set at the point
where label is switching for taking goods form the shelf. Further, judge held that "If one
postulates an honest customer taking goods from a shelf to put in his or her trolley to take to the
checkpoint there to pay the proper price, I am unable to see that any of these actions involves any
assumption by the shopper of the rights of the supermarket...The concept of appropriation in my

view involves not an act expressly or impliedly authorised by the owner but an act by way of
adverse interference with or usurpation of those rights. Another case is R v Evans which is
based upon court of appeal in the case court held that it is not legal to decide over issue of duty
of care. In this existence of duty of care was the main question of law which has been established
in the existence of law over the judge. In this question that existence of duty of care exists or not
regarding family relationship. In the case it was observed that care was seek in relation to duty of
care in relation to supply of heroin. She had in effect created a dangerous situation and failed to
take action to reduce the risk by summoning medical assistance which would have saved her.
Conclusion:
From the above analysis it can be marked out the facts of the case says that as an
agreement was held for in relation to riding an jet Ski up to certain limit. This makes the driving
of ski to be very effective in nature this makes valid agreement to be created but the agreement
was breached when he ski was taken out of restricted area. This made breached caused and theft
occur as ski was nit parked to its original place. This makes Erin's liability of theft as it made
theft of ski caused. Relevant case law in relation to breach of contract is Hochster v De la Tour
in this case court held that party communicates with the intention over performing the contract
innocent party need not wait until the breach has taken place which bringing their claim. They
make sue done mediately over the chosen contract that has to be continued in relation over
breach occurred. Through applying these act it has been observed that Erin has committed theft
by taking the seek beyond the limit specified and intention was to steal it as he new the specified
limit.
Simeon's liability for sexual offences
Issue:
The issue that has been raised after analysing the case scenario is based upon Simeon's
liability of sexual offence. It is related over criminal offence which is covered within criminal
law.
Rule:
It can be observed within the case that sexual offence has taken place which is covered
within Sexual Offence act 2002 in this rape has been covered as as person who commits an
offence which is committed through
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.[
Rape previously did not include penetration of the mouth. The Act also changes the way in
which lack of consent may be proved, and section 75 and 76 of the Act list circumstances in
which lack of consent may be presumed.
Analysis:
After analysing the case it can be observed that an Simeon was not drunk but Anita was
which makes her consent to be absent and as per the Sexual Offence act 2002 it can be observed
that rape has been committed as consent is absent of Anita.
Conclusion:
It can be observed that an offence of rape has been committed which makes the offence
of sexual offence and concept related to it identified effectively. The applicability of the act has
made court decide the motive behind the sexual offence which has been committed with the
intention to rape which makes sexual offence committed by Simeon.
CONCLUSION
From the above discussion it can be concluded that criminal laws are the laws that has
been used in order to deal over various kind of criminal activities that impacts society more
effectively. Also the law has been used in order to make development possible regarding
legislation and acts. Further, in this file things covered is based upon various aspects of criminal
offences which is theft, sexual offence and manslaughter. These concept has been discussed with
the helps of relevant cases and analysis.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Buchheit, L.C., 2019. Ethical considerations in the representation of sovereign clients. In
Research Handbook on Law and Ethics in Banking and Finance. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Burri, T., 2021. The New Regulation of the European Union on Artificial Intelligence: Fuzzy
Ethics Diffuse into Domestic Law and Sideline International Law. Available at SSRN
3865149.
Conrad, C.A., 2018. Ethics in Business Education. In Business Ethics-A Philosophical and
Behavioral Approach (pp. 327-337). Springer, Cham.
Courcelles, D., 2019. The Ethics of the Merchant in the Islamic Faith: From Ibn Khaldoun to
Islamic Finance.
Dickinson, A.L., 2017. Recent Ethics Opinions of Significance. J. Legal Prof., 42, p.291.
Fairchild, and et. al., 2018. 14. Health Justice. In Public Health Law and Ethics (pp. 587-612).
University of California Press.
Kubacki, K., Szablewska, N. and Kennedy, A.M., 2019. Guest editorial: Social good and ethics
in social marketing for wicked problems. Journal of Social Marketing, 9(4), pp.485-
489.
Phillips, P. and Moutinho, L., 2018. Business ethics. In Contemporary Issues in Strategic
Management (pp. 178-194). Routledge
Shanahan, K.J. and Hopkins, C.D., 2019. Level of agreement between sales managers and
salespeople on the need for internal virtue ethics and a direct path from satisfaction with
manager to turnover intent. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3), pp.837-848.
Surdam, D.G., 2020. Examples of Mid-Nineteenth-Century Business Ethics in America. In
Business Ethics from the 19th Century to Today (pp. 71-99). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Batteau, A.W. and Trainor, B.J., 2017. The Ethics of the Profession of Business Anthropology.
In Ethics in the Anthropology of Business (pp. 54-69). Routledge.
Ruhullah, M.E. and Qodir, Z., 2020. Political Ethics by Sheikh Hasina And Khaleda Zia’s
Government from 2009 to Present: A Research on Literature Review. Khazanah Sosial,
2(3), pp.167-178.

Ogunyemi, K., 2020. Virtue ethics traditions in Africa–an introduction. In African Virtue Ethics
Traditions for Business and Management. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gentile, M.C., 2017. Giving voice to values: A pedagogy for behavioral ethics. Journal of
Management Education, 41(4), pp.469-479.