Criminal Law: Analyzing Liability of Charles, David and Freddie

This assignment provides a detailed legal analysis of two scenarios involving criminal liability. The first scenario examines the liability of Charles for causing both physical and emotional harm to Mike, including injuries from a beer glass and subsequent panic attacks. The analysis considers the elements of criminal liability and the impact of emotional distress. The second scenario assesses Charles's liability for theft after taking a season ticket and cash from Jenny's coat pocket, focusing on the intent to deprive and lack of consent. The second part of the assignment analyzes the liability of David for the death of Erica, considering his hallucinations and the absence of mens rea for murder. The final part evaluates Freddie's liability for the death of Gary, emphasizing the lack of intent to kill and the circumstances surrounding Gary's actions as an undercover officer. The analysis considers the elements of murder, including actus reus and mens rea, and relevant case law.

Question 5
(a)
The issue that is present in this part of the question is if Charles can be held liable for the trauma
caused to Mike due to which he could not work for several weeks.
The law provides that while evaluating the harm and providing punishment for it, along with the
physical harm, the emotional harm is also taken into consideration. However, emotional harm
has not been made an element of criminal liability in such cases. On the other hand, the way the
present case, in return of the abusive language used by Mike, Charles had smashed the glass of
beer into Mike's face due to which it received severe cuts on his face and neck. At the same time,
as a result of these injuries, Mike was so traumatized that he could not go to work for several
weeks. Under these circumstances, it is clear that Charles is liable for the injuries caused to
Mike. But at the same time, Charles is also responsible for the emotional harm suffered by Mike.
Due to this reason, it can be said that Charles is responsible for the panic attacks from which
Mike suffered after the injuries and due to which it could not attend work for many weeks.
(b)
In the second part of this question, the issue arises if Charles can be held liable for theft as he had
taken away. The season-ticket and some cash from the court pocket of Jenny when she had gone
to the toilet. Charles desperately wanted to see the evening performance of Romeo and Juliet,
which was his favorite play and he was also short of cash. Therefore, he took the ticket and some
cash from Jenny's coat pocket with the intention that we will return them at the first available
opportunity. While taking away the things, Charles was sure that Jenny will not mind anyway.

On the other hand, the offense of the has been defined as the acts involving the taking away the
property of another person without the permission of such a person. The law generally defines
theft and unauthorized taking away of the property of another person with the intention of
permanently depriving a person from the property.1 For this purpose, two elements should be
present, the taking away of the property of someone else and they require intention of depriving
the victim of the property.2
In the present case, both these elements are present. Charles had taken away the tickets and the
cash from Jenny’s coat pocket without her consent and with the intention of permanently
depriving Jenny from these tickets and the money. As a result, in the present case, it can be said
that Charles is liable for the offense of theft as he has stolen the tickets and money from Jenny's
court pocket while she was away.
Question 6
(a)
The offense of murder requires that a person of some memory and aging of discretion should
have unlawfully killed another person, where malice afterthought. In such a case, the actus reus
of murder, comprises of the unlawful killing of another human being. Similarly, the mens rea of
murder is consistent in the malice afterthought.3 This has been interpreted by the courts as having
the meaning of intention to kill. However, in the present case, David was suffering from
hallucinations. Therefore when he attacked Erica, he did not have the mens rea of killing Erica.
1 R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697
2 Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626
3 R v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482

In the same way, although there was negligence on part of the paramedic but David will have to
face the consequences of the death of Erica.
Generally, it has been seen that in a murder case, willfulness means that the perpetrator of the
crime should have the intention of ending of human life.4 For this purpose, it is required that the
act should be committed intentionally and not by accident. However, due to the reason that
willfulness can be difficult to identify in many cases, which needs to be decided on the basis of
the facts of each case.
In the present case also, David was under a hallucination that the barking dog of the neighbour
was ordering him to kill his neighbour Erica. Therefore, it can be concluded in this case that
David did not have the intention of killing Erica when he attacked her.
(b)
In this part of the question, it needs to be decided if Freddie can be held liable for the death of
Gary as he had pushed Gary from the harbor wall as he had seen Gary pointing a gun towards
another person. While Freddie believed that Gary will be able to swim, Gary could not swim and
therefore drowns. It was later found that Gary was an undercover officer and he was pointing his
gun towards a suspected terrorist. Under these circumstances, the question arises if Freddie can
be held liable for killing Gary and for the offense of murder. For this purpose, it has to be seen if
all the elements that are essential for establishing the offense of murder are present in this case.
As mentioned above, murder can be established if one person has willfully killed the other
person. In this way, the intention to kill is one of the essential requirements of the offense. On
the other hand, in the present case, Freddie did not intend to kill Gary but he wanted to dissuade
Gary as he was pointing a gun at another person.
4 Airedale Hospital Trustees v Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316

Or in other words, it cannot be said that Freddie had the mens rea that is an essential requirement
for establishing the offense. It is clear that in the present case Freddie did not have the intention
of killing Gary. Hence, Freddie cannot be held liable for murdering Gary.

Bibliography
Airedale Hospital Trustees v Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316
Lawrence v MPC [1972] AC 626
R v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482
R v Morris [1983] 3 WLR 697