Examining Criminal Responsibility in Betty's Death Case - Law

This assignment analyzes a criminal law case involving Betty's death, evaluating the potential criminal liability of several individuals. The analysis begins by establishing the importance of 'actus reus' and 'mens rea' for each actor. Naveed is considered, with his threats and intentions, but his direct contribution to the chain of causation is questioned, suggesting liability under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Peter, who took Betty hostage, is examined under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 and the potential for attempted murder charges. The liability of PC Patel, who fired the fatal shots, is assessed, and the potential negligence of the doctor on duty is also considered. The assignment provides an overview of the case and the legal principles relevant to determining responsibility for Betty's death, along with references to legal texts.

Please make reply agree or disagree -------220 words and references
It is important to establish grounds for 'actus reus' with the necessary 'mens rea' for the actions
of each individual that led to Betty's death. The conduct of which is required to be intentional
and voluntary that developed a chain of causation. Dating back, common law was concerned
with the prohibition of occurring specific results and punished the defendant by their positive
acts; presently, they also recognize a limited liability for omissions where a duty to act could be
implied(1).
In the case at hand, Naveed threatened the victim and expressed his intention to commit the
crime; however, he did not actually contribute to the chain of causation leading to Betty's
murder. Naveed can only be held liable on conviction for threatening Betty under Offences
Against the Person Act 1861(2).
Looking at peter’s case, he took Betty hostage and therefore committed a crime under Taking of
Hostages Act 1982(3). Peter threatened the victim and he can be charged with the attempt of
murder as well. It was because of him that Betty was put in the situation of death.
The police Constable Patel fired three bullets in the response of a bullet of Peter which of course
he had fired carelessly and did not have any intentions of killing Betty. PC Patel is liable, as he
was the main reason Betty died. The court has to evaluate the evidence related to the case and
make the final decision on the matter.
The doctor, in my opinion is also liable for negligent, he was on duty but did not perform as he
was expected. Out of contract he then would have been bound to perform and was not in a state
to stop Betty's death from happening. It can be argued that Betty did not have much chance of
life and also that the hospital could face legal action.
References,
1. Allen, M., Criminal Law (14th Edn, OUP 2017), pg. 33-38
2. Offences Against the Person Act 1861
3. Taking of Hostages Act 1982
Reply
It can be easily agreed that laws should be there for any of the situation where any of the
person should not be allowed to do any of those work which can create issues for the public.
Whenever people shows their intentions towards any of the work then it is assumed that he/she
will perform that respective work.
In second situation, it can be agreed that Naveed should not have threatened the any of
the person because law doesn’t allow any of the person to do work act which can create issues
for other. Even there is the option that legal actions can be also taken upon the person who
threatened other person.

In third situation, there is the option that Peter can be charged with different cases among
which attempt to murder can be also one of them(Cryer, Robinson and Vasiliev, 2019). Any of
person don’t have the right to take those decisions due to which one have to lost their life.
In fourth situation, it is necessary to be disagreed with the decision that constable Patel
should be held liable because all of the circumstances were created by Peter. It was the constable
who just tried to bring the situation under control.
In fifth situation, it can be said that action can be taken against doctor as well because he
was on duty but still he was not willing to perform his task (Farahany, 2016). It is completely
against the law to perform the work of own choice without focusing on the other’s life.
REFERENCES
Cryer, R., Robinson, D. and Vasiliev, S., 2019. An introduction to international criminal law and
procedure. Cambridge University Press.
Farahany, N.A., 2016. Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: an empirical
analysis. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3), pp.485-509.