Criminal Law Report: Analysis of Alan's Actions and Legal Consequences

This report provides an in-depth analysis of a criminal law case centered around Alan, a soldier on leave who becomes involved in a series of tragic events. The report examines the legal ramifications of Alan's actions, including the accidental shooting of his father, Brian, and the subsequent death of his mother, June, as well as the death of Brian in hospital. It delves into key criminal law concepts such as mens rea, actus reus, the law of murder, homicide act, manslaughter, transferred malice, and causation. The analysis draws on relevant legal precedents, including R v Miller, R v Vickers, R v Saunders, R v Franklin, and R v Davies, to assess Alan's potential culpability under the criminal law. The report considers issues of constructive manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter and loss of control manslaughter. Furthermore, the report also discusses the doctor's role and the legal consequences related to the Brian’s death. The report concludes by summarizing the legal outcomes related to the criminal activities of Alan.

CRIMINAL LAW

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
CRIMINAL LAW............................................................................................................................3
Issue:...........................................................................................................................................3
Rules:..........................................................................................................................................3
Application:.................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion:.................................................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Criminal law refers to the body of law which is imposed in respect of securing the right
of the person who are affected through any of the illegal activity. The matters which are covered
under the criminal activity are related to the committing murder, rape or infringing any property
or physically harming any person body which results to death of such persons1. This report will
cover the matters related to the criminal law and also the laws and decision which are applied in
three major situations which is connected to the case of Alan, his father Brian, mother June and
doctor Chris.
CRIMINAL LAW
Issue:
In this case the issues is raised with the Alan which is a soldier and on leave from his job.
He carries various rifles and all are legally approved by the government. In respect of facing
argument with his father, Brian he put the rifles on his father and thus involuntarily trigger the
gun. By these aspects, Brian was shot and also various injuries was occurred to him. After
engraving shocked with his activity, Alan shot at the vask in respect of creating fear but
coincidently the shot hits to his mother, June. The results of this crime is that June died at the
spot. In context of providing the better treatment, Alan called the ambulances to provide the
better treatment to his father and mother but due to facing heavy freak storm, the ambulances got
delayed and not able to reach within the stipulated time. The another incident happens in the
hospital where the treatment of the Brian is undertaken by doctor Chris. As the antibiotics which
is given to the Brian examines the symptoms of allergic and thus by this aspect's, no
improvement in body is identified. In respect of securing himself from the doctor double dose
treatment, Brain jumped from the window which results in causing death.
Rules:
Criminal act, 1967:
Under this act, the criminal offences are penalized if the crime is committed, which
affects the right of the person. It mainly carries with two fundamental elements such as in case of
1 Boister, N., 2018. An introduction to transnational criminal law. Oxford University
Press.

Mens rea and in case of actus reus2. Mens rea is mainly relevant to the guilty mind of the person
which carries the intention to harm any person. In case of Actus rea, it refers to the guilty act in
which the crime is committed through the physical activity. In respect of proving the crime under
the criminal act, any of the essential is necessary to be proved.
In suit of R V Miller, the issues is raised regarding not taking care of the places even if he
is familiar with the offences which is committing at the place3. The judgement relating to this
case is refereed on the bases of carrying the mens rea instead of focusing on actus rea as there is
no such physical activity presence in such case.
Law of murder: Under the rule of murder, it indicates that the unlawful killing of any person
under the rules and guidances of the king or queen peace. They are liable to be penalized under
the strict action which is imposed depends upon the nature of the crime4. It must carry either both
of the elements to commit the crime such as Mens rea and Actus reus. It is necessary that the
crime is to be committed under the unlawful activity which is not forbidden by the law.
In the suit of the R V Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664, the cases stated that any crime which is
proved to be unlawful and committed by the legal weapon but carries the guilty mind are
punishable under the criminal court5.
Homicide act, 1957: In this act, the person are punishable which killed any other person thus
they are homicide by the strict rules and regulation which is imposed upon them6. Usually the
punishment imposed under this act is harsh, as the person is hang if they murder any person or
causing physically harm to any person which results in causes death.
2 Brown, K. J. and Murray, C. R., 2016. Enhancing interactivity in the teaching of criminal
law: using response technology in the lecture theatre. In The Teaching of Criminal Law. (pp. 46-
59). Routledge.
3 R v Miller. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/R_v_Miller>.
4 Ormerod, D. and Laird, K., 2018. Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law. Oxford
University Press.
5 R V Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://lucidlaw.co.uk/criminal-law/homicide-murder/with-malice-aforethought/r-v-vickers/>.
6 Loveless, J., Allen, M. and Derry, C., 2018. Complete criminal law: text, cases, and
materials. Oxford University Press.

Manslaughter transferred malice and causation:
In this case the transfer to the mens reas is committed and it is done upon the third persons. As
the person is intended to kill the other person but coincidently killed the third person. It is also
one type of criminal offences, as in this the intention of the person mind regarding committing
offences is examined7. Thus, they are also liable to be punishable under the criminal act. This is
explained with the case of R V Saunders (1573) 2 Plowd 473 in which the defendant carry the
intention to kill his wife and thus for these aspects, he put the poison in the apple and offer to his
wife8. Wife took the bite and then transferred the apple to his daughter which later results in
causing death of her daughter. Thus, the judgement is raised regarding punishable under the
criminal court for committing illegal offences.
In case of manslaughter, it mainly divided into three categorize such as:
Gross negligence's manslaughter: This is mainly carried to be under the involuntary
manslaughter in which the intention of the parties is not carried to kill the person. In this the
matter not reflected the situation of the mens rea9.
Constructive manslaughter: Usually, it reflects under the matters of the unlawful act, in which
the defendant carry the unlawful dangerous activity in which the results arise of death of any
person10. This is supported with the case of R V Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163 in which the
situation is raised regarding throwing the Brighton pier in the sea. The plaintiff jump into the sea
in respect of saving the packages but due to hit from the stone, he died. Thus, the decision are
given under the judgement related to the constructive manslaughter under the Homicide act11.
7 Fletcher, M. and Mancano, L., 2018. Brexit and Scots Law: Policing and Criminal
Justice.
8 REX V SAUNDERS AND ARCHER: 1573. 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://swarb.co.uk/rex-v-saunders-and-archer-1573/>.
9 McAlhone, C. and Wortley, N., 2016. Criminal law: The fundamentals. Sweet &
Maxwell.
10 Ryder, N., 2018. ‘Too Scared to Prosecute and Too Scared to Jail?’A Critical and
Comparative Analysis of Enforcement of Financial Crime Legislation Against Corporations in
the USA and the UK. The Journal of Criminal Law. 82(3). pp.245-263.
11 Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163. 2018. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.studentlawnotes.com/franklin-1883-15-cox-cc-163>.

Loss of control manslaughter: In this, the situation is raised regarding not maintain the control or
provoking any person to commit such crime12. This is mainly introduced under Section 54 of the
coroners and Justice act, 2009. It refers to the voluntary manslaughter in which the intention of
the parties is to be killed that person. But there are various exemption under this situation usually
in case of doctors, as they carry the right to kill any person when they feel that the chances of
living is no longer or when the pain is unbearable to the patients.
In case of R V Davies [1975] 1 QB 691, in this case the defendant killed his wife by
knowing the facts that his wife is having extra marital relationship. Thus, it includes the act of
provocation, as it is examined regarding forcing the husband to take such action which results in
affecting their rights and causing breach in his relationship13.
Application:
By examining the previous cases to our relevant case, the first situation which reflects the
matter of Alan is that he is liable to be punishable under the criminal court in respect of carrying
the criminal mind regarding harming person. Under the criminal act, if any person commit any
offences which is illegal such as murder or rape, than they are punishable under the criminal
court14. But to prove any type of crime, it is necessary that the crime must vary under the Mens
rea or actus rea situation. Thus, under the law of murder, similar as the case of the R V Vickers
[1957], the R carries the legal weapon but carry the intention to harm any person. The suit is
linked with the case of Alan as he undergone the argument with his father Brian and thus raises
the intention of criminal mind regarding harming his father. Thus, the situation of the criminal
act is stipulated and thus, he is punishable under these offences15.
12 Baron, M., 2019. Negligence, Mens Rea, and What We Want the Element of Mens Rea
to Provide. Criminal Law and Philosophy. pp.1-21.
13 Judgments - R v Davis (Appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division)). 2020. [Online]. Available through:
<https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080618/davis-1.htm>.
14 Appleman, L. I., 2017. Gothic Stories, Mens Rea, and American Criminal Law. In The
Routledge Research Companion to Law and Humanities in Nineteenth-Century America. (pp.
356-368). Routledge.
15 Hong, K., 2018. A New Mens Rea for Rape: More Convictions and Less
Punishment. Am. Crim. L. Rev. 55. p.259.

The another situation which is discussed under this case is that Alan shot the vask but
coincidently it hits his mother June and thus, she died on the spot. This case is linked with the
matter of the constructive manslaughter in the unlawful killing is undertaken by the Alan with
carrying the intention to harming anything but it negligently hits his Mother16. In the case of R V
Franklin (1883), the R commit the crime unlawfully and thus resulting in causing death to the
other person, similarly in case of Alan, he tries to hit the vask but hits his mother which cause
death. Thus, in this case the intention of the Alan is unlawful and thus he is liable to be
punishable under the set punishment mentioned under the homicide act17.
In context of matters related to the manslaughter transferred
malice and causation in which the intention is transferred regarding committing crime and also
the motive behind the crime is shifted from one person to another. This reflects the situation of
the second case in which the Alan not trying to kill his mother but coincidently hits his mother
which cause death18. This is supported with the case of R V Saunders (1573) in which the same
situation arises but the judgement is raised against the defendant regarding convicted him for the
illegal crime,
The third situation which reflect the matters is related to the death of the Brian by the
doctor treatment. As this carries the matters related to the negligences in which the activity is
related to the involuntary manslaughter in which the person not carry any intention to kill any
person, as they acted in lawful way19. It is the duty of the doctor to treat the patients in right way
and thus by giving the antibiotic is one of the type of lawful activity. But in this case the crime is
proved in wrongful manner, as in the suit of R V Davies [1975], the case is same after familiar
with the facts the same issues is committed by the doctor regarding securing the life of the Brian.
16 Serota, M., 2017. Proportional Mens Rea and the Future of Criminal Code Reform. Wake
Forest L. Rev. 52. p.1201.
17 Taylor, S., Lui, Y. L. and Workman, L., 2018. Defendant’s Mens rea or Attractiveness:
Which Influences Mock Juror Decisions. Forensic Res Criminol Int J. 6(1). p.00185.
18 Donnelly‐Lazarov, B., 2017. Intention in Criminal Law: The Challenge from Non‐
Observational Knowledge. Ratio Juris. 30(4). pp.451-470.
19 Cross, N., 2020. Criminal Law for Criminologists: Principles and Theory in Criminal
Justice. Routledge.

Conclusion:
From the above study, the discussion reflect the matter related to the criminal activity. In
the first situation, Alan is liable to be punishable under the criminal court as the weapon he
carries is legal but carries the criminal mind regarding harming Brian. In such manner, the crime
is proved under the mens rea in which is any person carry any criminal mind to harm other
person and which resultant to death. By these aspects, he is convicted for such offences. In
respect of judgement raised under the second situation relating to the death of his mother, the
judgement is given under the transfer of the malice and causation, in which the intention to kill
his mother is not derived, but he carries the criminal mind. Thus, through this manner, he is
liable to be punishable under the Homicide Act, 1957. The crime which is committed due to
negligences is also liable to be penalized, as after knowing certain facts, still the crime is
undertaken resulting in affecting the right of the person.
In the third situation, doctor Chris is not liable to be guilty under this act, as the decision
of committing suicide is chosen by the Brian itself as there is not interaction with the Chris
regarding committing suicide. But still Chris is liable to be penalized under the case of civil suit
in which the crime is imposed regarding not treating him well after examining the facts that the
medicine is not suitable for him. Thus, punishment is imposed under the medical practitioners act
regarding termination of his medical degree.
CONCLUSION
Thus, from the above situation it is stated that the criminal law are imposed when any
person is convicted for the offences which results in causing death of any person. Various factors
are also learned to regard the actus reus, mens rea and also transfer of criminal mind. The case
study of Alan explains various situation which is carried under the criminal law and also the
judgement which is made in respect of attaining the particular activity. In respect of decision
mentioned in the criminal law, the punishment imposed are strict and this the person are in
convicted for lifetime imprisonment as well.