Homicide

Murder prop
Answer -
The scenario pertains to discussing a criminal offence falling within the subject
of criminal law. The mandate falls within the area of homicide.In criminal law
the person must be punished for his or her wrongful acts. The principle of
proportionality and individual liability are also applicable i.e only individual
liability are also applicable i.e only individuals can be punished for his/her
crime.in Riggs v palmer A grandson in order to acquire inheritance killed his
grandmother as per inheritance law grandson is entitled to the property but it
was held that he did not get anything out of the crime he derived. A person is
punished for his or her wrongful acts so there is law and order and peace and
safety for a country..

Referring to the issue at hand, the following proposition is related to the

potential liability of Sonya for murder and as an alternative charge we may
look into constructive manslaughter and whether there are any defences
available that could be argued to reduce the sentence of Sonya in such
regard. Murder is a very heinous crime having a specific intent lord coke
defines murder as when a person with sound memory and age of discretion
and lawfully killeth within the country any reasonable creature with malice
aforethought under the queen's peace.we shall essentially look into the crime
blocks of actus reus which is a guilty act and the mental element which is
mens rea to prove the potential liability of sonya.

The actus reus of murder is a guilty act and it can be done by an act or an
omission. Unlawful killing is a crime and such causation must be regarded.
However certain killings are lawful like killing made under self defence or by
the order of the state as exemplified in R v clegg defendant shot four bullets
and the last bullet proved to be a fatal one and unreasonable. Soldiers and
police may kill in the course of duty but they would only be liable for murder if
they exceed the duty or use excessive force.

Moving on towards the proposition, sonya throwing the knife at femi can be
seen as the actus reus of this issue as this act is the guilty act and it can be
seen as the unlawful act. Sonya throwing the knife and femi dodging and
falling and becoming unconscious is seen as GBH has been caused. The
unlawful act is sufficient to prove the actus reus of sonya as she left him
unconscious. Here we talk about causation. Causation involves the
establishment of the causal link between the victim and the injured, it has two
types factual causation which is but for test as in injury would not have
occurred but for defendants fault and legal causation which is that defendants
act was substantial cause and operative at the time of death and should not
be de minimis, the principle case is of R v smith in which it was held that if he
second cause of the wound is so overwhelming as to make the original wound
as almost part of history then it can be said that death does not flow from that
wound. Sonya leaving femi as he remained unconscious and the effect of
slamming the door which released the flames and the gas that caused femis
death. However the question here arises is whether sonya's acts are the
factual and legal cause of this death of femi? Femi was unconscious and
unable to help himself when sonya left, sonya saw femi getting unconscious
and she didnt help, thus this makes sonya the legal and the factual cause of
femis murder. If the chain of causation is broken and the legal cause is not
sonya then sonya would ve been held liable under offences against persons
act section 20.

Moving forward to the mens rea of murder which is intention. There are two
types of intention which is direct and indirect intention. In the case of R v
woolin a person act intentionally with respect to result when it is his purpose
to cause it (direct intention) although it is not his purpose to cause it, he knows
that is a virtually certain consequence of his action(indirect or oblique
intention). In r v inglis it was held that the mens rea required for murder is
intention to kill or cause gbh. Relating it to the fact sonya throwing the knife at
femi can be seen as an intent to cause gbh and furthermore in order for
prosecution to prove the crime of murder, the statement sonya made when
femi was unconscious is clear evidence of her having a direct intent to murder
femi. Thus the coincidences of actus reus are proven for sonyas conviction.

However murder requires specific intent, thus there is a specific defence for
murder. The general defences are not applicable for murder in this case. As
he conviction is proven, sonya's defence council can raise the following
defences to reduce the sentence of sonya. Defendants may argue the
possibility of Loss of self-control, which could be available under Section
54-56 of the coroner and justice act 2009. This was previously known as the
defence of provocation available under the homicide act 1957. Defendants
have to prove the three elements of loss of self-control, in which there must be
a loss of self-control, the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger and the
objective man test. Applying it to the given facts, whether the history of
violence or the victim’s taunt to the defendant that she is a pathetic attention
seeker would be constituted under a qualifying trigger, as it is quite possible.
However, what the jury can do is, compare the defendant (Sonya) to the
person of his age and sex, with normal degree of tolerance and self-restraints
and question him, whether the defendant would have reacted in the same way
if put in the same circumstances.

If we talk about the qualifying trigger, which contained under Section 55(3) &
(4), in which it is stated that the defendant’s fear of serious violence from the
victim against the defendant or another person did it to save himself and
things done or said which (a) constitute circumstances of an extremely grave
character and (b) cause the defendant to have justifiable sense that victims
was being seriously wrong. Applying this law to the facts, there is clear
possibility that Sonya could succeed by arguing, she had fear of serious
violence from the victim, as he had beaten her and sexually abused her on a
number of occasions, especially when he was drunk. The taunt of pathetic
attention seeker would be constituted circumstances of extreme grave
character and the justification of the victim (Femi) being seriously wrong is, he
was drunk and coming toward defendant (Sonya), he had history of abuse
when he was drunk, so here, defendant believed that victim would do the
same as before, as per R v martin the fear must trigger loss of self-control
rather than a desired revenge or rational decease to put an end to ongoing
source of tortment. Moreover, we may discuss the ambit of Slow Burn, in
which she had tolerate the abusive behavior from may year, and now, she
didn’t have the capacity to tolerate more sexual abuse. As per, R vs.
Ahluwalia, the loss of self-control doesn’t have to be sudden. Thus, she lost
her self-control that day and act accordingly.

However, as per, R vs. Dawes and Hatter, the longer the period between
trigger and reaction, the weaker the evidence will be that of loss of
self-control. This defence will not be available where killings are premeditated
and considered rather than spontaneous, although she tolerated the abuse
from several times. Moreover, in this preposition, there is the matter of sexual
infidelity, as per, R vs. Clinton, the conviction for murder was quashed, but
the defence of loss of self-control doesn’t work. Since, sexual infidelity cannot
be a direct qualifying trigger. Although this defence does not mean that a
person is not guilty, if Sonya succeeds in proving a defence in her favour then
the sentence may be reduced from murder to manslaughter. As per, R vs.
Asmelash, the defendant would be disqualified from relying on defence if
reaction was more to do with his being usually intolerant or opt to lose control
or being intoxicated, thus, she could not rely on the opt to lose control.
Although, it is on the jury to decide whether there is loss of self-control.
The given scenario deals with the concept of homicide which involves
manslaughter and murder in the given circumstance.considering the legal
authority of Bratty vs AG for northern ireland stated that no act is punishable
until and unless it is committed voluntarily which means the coincidence of
actus reus and mens rea. Murder is a heinous crime which always has an
actus reus to cause GBH which is grievous bodily harm and the mens rea is
that there was intention to kill or cause GBH to the victim.Man slaughter on
the other hand can be distinguished as it does not have intention to kill or
cause GBH.we ll finding out how the crime elements of actus reus and mens
rea are fulfilled, whether it's manslaughter or murder and what specific
defences can be used with regards to the statute at hand referring to the both
parts of scenario as to how coroners and justice act 2009 applies considering
Astrids qualifying trigger, loss of control and lastly we'll highlight the reduction
is the sentence of murder to voluntary manslaughter.

As per the given facts of the case, we first have to determine the cause of
death followed by whether it is a manslaughter or a murder.considering that
duncan and colin is having an argument and colin prods his finger on duncan's
chest, however what he was not aware of was that duncan recently had an
accident which fractured his ribs but as a result of that prodding, duncan ribs
penetrated, which however can be related to causation.now considering the
factual cause the prodding was however the reason of duncan's death so the
but for test applies in this the case law regarding the factual cause is of R V
Smith in which it was held that if the second cause is so overwhelming as to
make the original wound nearly the part of history then it can be said that
death does not flow from that wound,in the case of Dyson it was held that it
was necessary to show that the defendant was the sole cause of death as
long as he accelerated the time of death, moving towards the legal cause so
in legal cause the egg skull rule will be considered as take the victim as you
find him and the sensitivity of the victim will not break the chain of causation
so Colin will remain liable for his wrongful act provided that act is voluntary
and also by applying the but for test, if colin wouldn't have prodded then the
ribs wouldn't have penetrated and this would have not happened at the first
place. The rule can be identified in the case of R v Blaue in which it was held
that the policy of rule of law is that take your victim as you find him. Thereby
the defendant was held liable as at the time of the death the operative cause
was stabbed wound and not the victim's refusal.in the case of R v Dalloway
the ratio decidendi was that the defendant had factually caused the death but
legally he had not because even if he had enough force on reign the cart
would not be able to stop and kid would still have died. Moving forward to hold
the conviction of Colin, we need to determine whether prodding the finger on
Duncan's chest murder or manslaughter. First we need to attain the relevant
mens rea, considering that colin and duncan were in middle of a heated
argument and colin prodded his finger on duncan's chest can be seen as an
intent to cause GBH or harm.intention is of two types, direct and indirect or
oblique intention.mens rea of murder does not only covers direct intention but
also extends to oblique intent where current test established in R v Woolen
applies.in which it was held that murder conviction was substituted with
manslaughter conviction.In the case of R v Vickers it is proved that the
intention to cause GBH is enough MR for murder. So collin prodding duncan
which causes him GBH is essential for mens rea and also there is coincidence
of actus reus and mens rea which may convict him for murder.

The defence Collins can use to reduce criminal liability for murder are set out
in the coroners and justice act 2009.these are statutory defences, the defence
was previously originated under section 2 of homicide act 1957.if the defence
is proven then Collins murder will be voluntary manslaughter. General
defences don't apply to murder so the specific defences are as follows 1)
Diminished responsibility 2) loss of self control. Collin cant raise the defence
of diminished responsibility as it deals with abnormality of mental functioning,
disease of mind and impairment of rationality as identified in S 52 of the
statute. The reason is because Collin had no mental abnormality or any sort of
mental impairment.section 54-56 identifies loss of control, the elements are as
follows there has to be loss of self control, it must have a qualifying trigger and
compare the defendant to a person of his age and gender with a normal
degree of tolerance and self restraint and question whether the defendant
would have reacted in the same way if put in the circumstances.collin can use
this defence as the argument between him and duncan got heated and he
acted in loss of self control, and something the jury need to be satisfied in this
is that whether the tolerance at this age and the reaction is justifiable . In the
case of R v Ahluwalia it was held that the loss of self control does not have to
be sudden and it can be gradual as well. In another case of R v duffy stated
that if there's a time lapse between provocation and killing defence will not
apply.However it is for the judge to determine the defence in this matter.
The second criminal liability we need to determine is of Astrid who is Duncan's
mother.the scenario can be seen as clear example of murder.lord coke define
murder as A murder is when a person of sound memory and of the age of
discretion unlawfully killeth within any country any reasonable creature with
malice aforethought under the queen's peace.murder consists of unlawful
killing, human victim sound mind and under queen's peace.astrid after
recognizing bjorn and stated that THAT SERVES YOU RIGHT, I HOPE YOU
DIE proves the Mens rea of murder which is to kill or cause GBH. in the case
of R v inglis, it was held that mens rea required for murder is intention to kill or
cause GBH. Astrid could ve saved Bjorn but leaving Bjorn to die was clear
intent to cause him GBH or to kill. The defence that could be used to reduce
criminal liability is the statutory defence of diminished responsibility as stated
in Section 52 of coroners justice act in which the type of mental abnormality
could be used as a defence. Considering that Duncan was astrid's son and
after his death astrid would have been mentally affected resulting her in
depression which can be used as a defence for this as also identified in the
case of R v gitten. The other defence of loss of self control could also be used
in this as written in S 54-56. The qualifying trigger is contained under
S55(3)(4).but for reference we need to look into the case of R v Dawes and
hater in which it was held that the longer the period between trigger and
reaction the weaker the evidence will be that of loss of self control. This
defence will not be available where killings are mediated and killings are
required to be spontaneous for this defence to be applicable.the evidence
must be beyond the reasonable doubt as held in DPP v woolmington.

a) John went to stay with his friend Luke. One evening Luke cooked a
special dish of mussels and prawns for John. Later that evening
John began to vomit due to an allergic reaction to the mussels.
Luke put John to bed hoping that a good sleep would aid his
recovery. When Luke tried to wake John the next morning John
was in a coma. Luke did not realise this and so did not call the
ambulance. When, a few hours later, Luke finally realised that
something was seriously wrong with John he called for an
ambulance. John died on the way to hospital. Consider Luke's
possible criminal liability for gross negligence manslaughter.
b) Imran and Ed, who were both in love with the same woman, had an
argument. In the course of the argument Ed pushed Imran hard.
Imran responded by pushing Ed equally hard.Ed fell over, cutting
his arm badly. Imran tried to stop the bleeding with a handkerchief
but was unable to do so because Ed was a haemophiliac which
meant that his blood would not clot. Imran took Ed to the hospital
but got stuck in traffic. By the time he had arrived at hospital Ed
had died of blood loss. Consider Imran's possible liability for
constructive manslaughter.
[Q2/Part B/Criminal Law/LA1010/2017/ZA/ZB]

The given proposition falls within the mandate of manslaughter within

homicide in criminal law. The two given issues fall within the area of
involuntary manslaughter which can be defined as where the defendant had
no intention to kill or cause GBH but the victim dies. In the first scenario we
shall be proving gross negligence manslaughter and in the other we shall be
proving constructive manslaughter.

a. The given proposition deals with gross negligence manslaughter.

Defendant is charged with negligence when defendant has a very high
 degree of negligence as to the risk of death. It means defendant actions
or omissions are grossly negligent as to the risk of death and he
breaches a legal duty of care. Gross negligence manslaughter is an
appropriate charge in circumstances when the defendant kills while
performing a lawful activity in a criminally careless fashion or has
omitted when expected to act. We shall first be looking into the duty of
care that Luke owed to john. In the case of R v bateman in which in
order to establish liability the defendant owed duty of care to the victim,
the duty is not discharged and that failure caused the victims death. In
another case of r v wacker truck driver was held convicted of
manslaughter for his failure in the regard and deeper consideration of
public policy were applied. In the proposition considering that luke and
john are friends when john got sick, luke had a duty of care in this
matter that he was to provide john with medicine but instead he asked
him to sleep which showed he breached that duty of care when he did
nothing to stabilise the initial condition of john which got severe by time
and resulted in john going to coma just as a failure to act done by luke
which shows breach. Luke can argue on the grounds that he wasn't
aware of whether John was allergic to the food and it can get severe but
the law here applies is of causation and within causation the egg shell
skull rule which states take the victim as you find him. The sensitivity of
the victim will not break the chain of causation. In the case of R v blaue
in which it was held, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant to say
that the victim's religious belief which inhibited her from accepting
certain kind of treatment was unreasonable. The policy of law is take
your victim as you find him, thereby the defendant was held liable as at
the time of death the operative cause was stabbed wound and not the
victim's refusal. Applying the egg shell skull rule, Luke cannot argue that
thus he will be liable for the death caused and at the time of death the
operative cause was the breach of duty of care by luke.
b. The scenario pertains to discussing the issue of liability on Imran which
falls under constructive manslaughter under criminal law. This scenario
can be seen as an involuntary manslaughter where the defendant has
no intention to kill but the victim dies, the constructive manslaughter
falls within this. In constructive manslaughter is when the defendant
causes death in h=the course of performing an unlawful act while
committing a crime. Constructive manslaughter requires commision of
crime likely to cause harm. To be guilty of constructive manslaughter the
cause of death must be the act in question which must be dangerous
and unlawful. In the case of R v Andrews only acts which are inherently
 criminal can form the basis of constructive manslaughter charge. In the
famous case of R v Jennings in deciding the conviction of constructive
manslaughter, first question is whether the death resulted from
commision of crime and secondly the crime must be identified by the
prosecution.. In the given proposition Imran pushing Edward equally
hard can be seen as unlawful and dangerous as it can bring a claim
against him under the offences against persons act 1861 section 20 that
is wounding or gbh. The wound was a cut. Imran cannot argue that he
tried to stop the bleeding and that clotting being not performed does not
save his conviction of constructive manslaughter, it however makes him
the factual and legal cause of that wound. The court will apply the
concept of egg shell skull rule which have a general rule as to take the
victim as you find him as seen in R v dalloway in which the defendant
had factually caused the death but legally he had not because even if
he had enough force on reign the cart would not be able to stop and kid
would still have died. In the given scenario imran cannot argue that the
reason of eds death is haemophilia, as its contradiction of the egg shell
skull rule, thus on these grounds imran is liable

.Question - One cold December night, Zoe and her partner Vijay, a
heavyweight boxer, have an argument during which Zoe tells Vijay that
she is having an affair with Vijay’s best friend, Tony. Vijay, in fury, aims a
heavy punch at Zoe’s head. The punch misses her head and Zoe runs
upstairs and locks her bedroom door. Vijay pursues her and bangs on
the bedroom door, shouting, at the top of his voice, “You wait until I get
my hands on you. I am going to kill you.” When Zoe refuses to open the
door, Vijay calls his housemate, Andi, to help him break it down. Andi
has not heard Vijay’s threat but realises that Vijay wants to hurt Zoe.
They both put their shoulders to the door and the lock gives way. Fearful
for her life, Zoe jumps out of the window, lands awkwardly and breaks
her ankle. At that moment, Rhoda drives by in her car. She offers Zoe a
lift to the hospital which Zoe accepts. Unfortunately, Rhoda gets lost
and, when Zoe criticises her for losing her way, insists that Zoe get out
of the car although the temperature outside is below freezing. Zoe,
unable to walk, waits by the side of the road but no one stops to help.
After a time, Zoe loses consciousness. Several hours later she dies of
hypothermia.

The scenario pertains to discussing the actual liability of Vijay and rhoda. We
shall first give an argument whether Vijay could be held liable for murder or
manslaughter and the same argument will be given for Rhoda as well. We
shall be given arguments as a prosecutor and as a defence criminal lawyer
and whether what defences can be seen on the table for reducing the
reduction in punishment. We shall first define what murder is, according to lord
coke, a murder is when a person of sound memory and of age of discretion
unlawfully kills within any country any reasonable creature with malice
aforethought under the queen's peace and involuntary manslaughter can be
seen as unintentional killing. We shall determine whether it's a murder and
manslaughter or murder referring to the crime blocks that are actus reus and
mens rea.

The issue is whether Vijay can be held liable for murder or manslaughter? The
actus reus of murder can be committed by an act and unlawful killings are
result crimes that must be proven with respect to causation. Some killings are
lawful in self defence, state ordered executions or killings by armed forces
accompanied by warrant.in the case of R v clegg in this case defendant shot
four bullets and last bullet proven fatal and unreasonable, soldiers and police
may kill in the course of duty but they would only be liable for murder if they go
beyond that duty or use excessive force. In the case of carter v canada
prohibition on physical assisted suicide was declared contrary to human rights
by the supreme court of canada. Now considering that vijay is a boxer and he
points his heavy fist towards his wife to punch her can be seen as an intent to
cause her GBH and the fact that zoe had to lock herself in the door just to
save herself and then jumping off the window can be seen as causation from
vijay's side. Causation involves the establishment of a causal link between the
victim's injury and the defendant's act. This can fall within the an escape
cases of causation, in the case of R v Roberts it was held that victims
response was not reasonable and it was reasonably foreseeable as the car
was moving at a moderate speed so defendant was held liable. In the case of
R v Williams and Davis the nature of the threat was important in considering
the foreseeability of harm to the victim and whether the victim's conduct is
proportionate to the threat by the defendant. Zoe due to fear caused by vijay
broke her ankle. However for us to determine the issue of murder in this is if
we are able to find the mens rea of the crime. Mens rea is an internal or
mental element of an offence. The intentional elemment can be seen as basic
intent which is murder as vijay's statement could be used against him by the
prosecutor of him saying I WILL KILL YOU which shows direct intent which
shows intention to cause gbh or kill. If the fact indicates that the purpose of the
defendant is to kill the victim then the intention is to be presumed. However,
where no such intention is expressed the court will infer intention. In the case
of R v duff it was held that intention in the context of murder, having death or
gbh as one's objective in acting as one did such that if death or gbh did not
occur one would consider one's action a failure. In R v inglis it was held that
mens rea for murder is intention to kill or cause GBH. on the above
statements and grounds Vijay could be held liable, however the defence
council can bring up certain defences which we will discuss later collectively.

The next question is whether the cause of death of Zoe was her broken ankle
or Rhoda leaving Zoe in the middle way? In this vijjay can argue that the
factual cause is indeed vijay but not the legal cause. According to hart and
honore defined factual cause as if the consequence would not have happened
but for that act whereas legal cause can be defined as defendants act were
not substantial cause and operative at the time of death and should not be de
minimis, the act should be substantial. In the case of R v smith if the second
cause is so overwhelming as to ,making the original wound nearly a part of
history then it can be said that death did not flow from that wound. Now
considering that rhoda offered zoe a lift to take it to the hospital and left her
midway in freezing cold can be seen as the guilty act, she cannot argue that
due to temperature zoe died,

Offences against person

The scenario pertains to the mandate of non fatal offences against persons
under criminal law. .In criminal law the person must be punished for his or her
wrongful acts. The principle of proportionality and individual liability are also
applicable i.e only individual liability are also applicable i.e only individuals can
be punished for his/her crime.in Riggs v palmer A grandson in order to
acquire inheritance killed his grandmother as per inheritance law grandson is
entitled to the property but it was held that he did not get anything out of the
crime he derived. A person is punished for his or her wrongful acts so there is
law and order and peace and safety for a country..

In the given proposition we shall be looking into the possible criminal liability of
Fred considering the offences against persons act 1861. First we shall discuss
the relevant section applicable to fred's action. The sections we shall be
referring to in this current scenario will be section 47 which is actual bodily
harm dealing with slight injuries, section 20 dealing with grievous bodily harm,
and section 18 which is similar to section 20 but differentiates as it is only
applicable when there is prevention of arrest. We shall also see the possibility
of the specific defences available for fred.

1. Issue
Section 47
Consent not applicable due to age difference

2. Issue
Section 20
Defence of consent applicable

3. Issue
Psychic assault, and section 47
No defence available

4. Issue
Section 18 prevention of arrest

Kimberly recently ended her relationship with Ben, a work

colleague. Ben was very angry about this and decided to ‘teach her
a lesson’. He sent her a number of obscene and abusive messages
by email, and also left similar messages on her answering
machine. Owing to this Kimberly suffered a severe psychological
reaction and was absent from work for three months. On her return
to work, Kimberly saw Ben in a corridor. He was holding open a
heavy glass door and as Kimberly approached he made a
movement which made it appear as if he was about to swing the
door at her. Kimberly jumped back in alarm, fell and broke her arm.
Ben now says that he was only moving the door slightly ‘for a
laugh’. Richard, a colleague, became aware of these incidents. He
approached Ben and told him ‘to pick on somebody your own
size’. They agreed to ‘settle things’ in the boxing ring in the work’s
gym. They fought together one evening and each suffered cuts and
bruises.
Advise Ben and Richard as to their potential criminal liability.

Answer
The scenario pertains to discuss a criminal offence against a person in
which we ll identify the liability of ben and richards holistically by virtue
of Offences against person Act 1861. Offences against person is a
crime in which we ll shed some light on non fatal offences against some
person, the crime against autonomy involves crime where the defendant
undesirably interfere with victim autonomy or freedom of actions such
crimes do not require proof of physical harm and crime of violence is in
which physical harm has been caused, s18, s 20 and s47 deal with it.we
shall also look into possible defences that are available.

Looking at the facts of the case, that ben abusing Kimberly deliberately
as a result of her breaking up with him, the offence comes under section
47.section 47 deals with an assault which resulted in ABH with the
health and comfort of the victim. It deals with the harm which does not
require stitches, no blood flows and minor injury bruises and rupture. If
this is proven the maximum imprisonment of 5 years is to be served. In
the case of R v miller swift justice defined ABH as any hurt or injury
calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim, it does
have to be permanent but must be more than transient or trifling. In the
case of R v chanfook it was held that actual bodily harm includes
psychiatric injury. Applying the rule to the current proposition ben is
criminally liable for action 47 as he caused discomfort to kimberly, and
the health and comfort of the victim was compromised as his messages
were abusive and obscene.kimberly's immediate physical safety was
not threatened however the messages did caused her comfort thus ben
is liable.

Moving on to the fact that when Kimberly returned after 3 months, she
fell off as a result of being revolving the door in her direction which
resulted in her broken arm. In this we shall first look into the but for test
and then as for liability, we shall look into which section of OAPA 1861
can be related in this.as kimberly had a broken arm because of ben's
action therefore we shall look into the causation.the but for test is
applicable as kimberly would not have had a broken arm but because of
ben's action as stated by hart and honore as that the factual cause if the
consequence would not have happened but for that act.the principle
case of it is of R v smith in which it was held that if the second cause is
so overwhelming as to make the the original wound as part of history,
then it can be said that death does not flow with from that
wound.another case is of R v Morby, in which it was held that omission
is the factual cause if the consequence would not have happened but
for the defendants failure to act. Concluding on to this is the fact that the
but for test hereby does apply regarding the action of Ben towards
kimberly.

Moving on as a result of Ben's action Kimberly suffered a broken arm,

therefore we shall look into which section is applicable of the OAPA
1861.section 20 of OAPA 1861 is applicable here which has the actus
reus regarding wounding and GBH. Firstly defining GBH we shall refer
to the case of R v Saunders in which it was held that GBH means
serious harm.another case example in which GBH was defined is of
DPP v smith.in which it was stated that GBH means serious bodily
harm.a broken arm is considered as a GBH and there falls within the
mandate of s20.we shall now look into the mens rea of section 20 to
decide liability of ben for his offence committed. The mens rea is
intention or recklessness. The act of ben can be seen as reckless as it
involved taking of an unjustified risk.recklessness is a state of mind
where you foresee the risk and still go ahead and bring about the result
that you foresaw.there are 2 types of recklessness the subjective test
and the objective test. The subjective test as seen in R V gunningham
states the principle as the defendant being aware of the risk in order to
satisfy this test and his conduct must have been unreasonable.
Objective test is not as per defendants but as per reasonable man of
the society as exemplified in R v Caldwell.bens actions were reckless
in this regard as he saw kimberly approaching and therefore he moved
the door in that particular direction resulting in kimberly's broken arm.so
the applicability in this scenario related therefore under s20 ben could
evidently be held liable and the specific defence of consent can
evidently be not related.

As for the scenario relating to the conversation and act between Ben
and richard. We shall apply section 47 of OAPA 1861.section 47 is
assault occasioning to actual bodily harm. An action which results in
ABH is harm which does not require stitches, no blood flows and minor
injury bruises and rupture. An injury in which upper layers of the skin
are exposed .Ben and Richard as a result of boxing match suffered
bruises and minor injuries which falls within the mandate of s47 of
OAPA 1861. Section 47 makes it an offence to commit ABH out a
maximum of 5 years of imprisonment.in the case of R v Burstow
depressive illness counts as ABH. in R v ireland it was held that panic
attacks and chronic attacks count as ABH.thus concluding the facts and
cases as well as applicable law , richard and ben both are to be held
liable under the offence of s 47.

However , the specific defence of consent can be used by Richards and

Ben as they both agreed upon having a boxing match. A consent is
where one person freely consents to what would otherwise be an
assault or any injury that there would be no offence.consent can be
expressed or implied.the test for consent is that consent was freely
given and not obtained through fraud, the victim has legal capacity to
consent, where the infliction of bodily harm is involved the act
consented was the one to which consent is legally recognized as a
defence.in the case of Wilson v pringle, it is suggested that people
impliedly consent to ordinary social contact..another case is of R v
wilson in which tattooing ear piercing and other form of body piercing or
body alteration may also be consented if reasonable.it can be
concluded seeing the specific defence of consent is hereby applicable
but considering the public policy the consent to fight to settle the
differences cannot be seen as valid, the alternative is never a fight to
settle a dispute thus the defence is not applicable.

Theft prop
Henrik and Sergio are golfing rivals. Sergio has never won a major
championship. Henrik wins them all the time. On the eve of the
Open Championship, Sergio removes Henrik’s putter (a type of
golf club) from Henrik’s bag and hides it. He knows that Henrik will
find it difficult to win using a new putter. He is right. Henrik is
forced to buy a new putter when he discovers his loss and puts
badly throughout the tournament. He comes second and Sergio
wins. Sergio then returns the putter as he had always intended.
Discuss.

The scenario pertains to discussing theft under criminal law, the given
proposition will be referred to the theft act 1968. According to section
1(1) a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
other of it.we shall be proving the actus reus and mens if theft. The
actus reus of theft is 3 essentials, which is there must be a property, the
property must be appropriated and the property must belong to another
at the time of the appropriation of it. The mens rea is dishonestly and
intention to deprive permanently. We shall be relating these all to prove
the liability of theft on sergio.

According to section 4 the following things are property for the purposes
of this act, money, real property, personal property and many more. The
famous case of R v sharpe it was held that one cannot steal bodies as
bodies are not personal properties. It was said a body wants no owner.
In another case of R v welsh a driver was guilty of theft for removing his
own urine specimen from a police station and this was done to avoid
conviction for drunk driving. The cutter was the property of Henrik which
was taken by Sergio from henriks bag which fulfils the first essential of
theft that there must be a property and the property was the cutter.

Moving towards the second essential which is the property must be

appropriated by sergio. Appropriation under section 3 theft act can be
defined as any assumption by a person about the right of an owner and
this includes where he has come by the property (innocently or not)
without stealing it, any later presumption of a right of owner to it by
keeping or dealing with it as owner. The famous case of R v pitham it
was held that assumption of any right of owner however trivial, suffice
for appropriation, offer to sell friends furniture was held to be
appropriation. In the case of R v fritschy it was held that switching or
price labels was held to be frustrating. Now the issue here arises is
about consent which was clarified in the case of Dpp v gomez in which
lord Keith confirmed that appropriation can take place with the consent
of the owner even if the property was freely given as a
gift(transfer/borrow). The appropriation was done by not returning the
property.applying it to the scenario sergio appropriated henriks putter
when he assumed the rights of henriks putter when he took it so that
henrik cant play with it thus shows appropriation from his side as he
assumed henriks rights.

The third essential is that property must belong to another at the time of
the appropriation of it.according to section 5 of theft act it is stated that
property may belong to more than one person at a time, property can
belong to a person even if he/she is not aware and also it is possible to
steal something the defendant own as exemplified in R v turner no 2.
In R v Meredith the defendant took his own car from the police car park
where it had been impounded. He was indicted for theft. The judge
directed the jury to acquit on the basis that although police have
possession and control of the car, had no right to retain the car against
him.in the case of william v phillips householder put refuse out for
collection by local authority such refuse remained property belonging to
the house holder until collected. Applying the general rule to proposition
sergio when he was appropriating the putter. It was belonging to henrik
thus on these grounds he is liable and has committed the actus reus
elements of theft.

Moving on to the mens rea of theft which is dishonesty as stated within

the section 2 of theft act 1968, section fails to address or define
dishonesty however it states that a person is not dishonest in the
following circumstances. Section 2(1)(a) if defendant appropriates the
property in belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it,
section 2 (1)(b) if defendant appropriates the property in belief that he
would have others implied consent and section 2 (1)(c) if defendant
appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom property
belongs can't be discovered by taking reasonable steps. In r v ghosh it
was held that both subjective and objective test needs to be fulfilled
however it was partially overruled in ivey genting v casinos in which
subjective standards under ghosh were no longer determined, only
objective standards would apply. For us to determine the dishonesty of
sergio we see that sergio has no legal right to take the putter, if henrik
was aware of that he would never have given the consent thus the
honest belief of consent is not effective as the putter was very important
to henrik thus on these grounds the mens rea of dishonesty is proven.

According to section 6 of theft act 1968 a defendant accused of theft

should have intention to deprive the owner of it, dispose of or use the
property regardless of owner rights. According to R v Fernandez
section 6 may apply to a person in possession or in control of another's
property who dishonestly and for his own purpose deals with that
property in such a manner that he knows he is risking its loss. Henrik
can argue on these grounds to prove Sergio liable for theft. Sergio can
argue that he did not intend to deprive Henrik of it permanenly necessity
ntly thus on these grounds this essential of mens rea is not applicable.

It can be concluded that to make a person liable for theft, all three
essentials of actus reus and two mens rea needs to be proven, to hold a
person liable, if any of these factors are missing, a person can't be liable
therefore sergio is not liable of theft.

introduction of fraud prop

6. Freddy is visiting the Gromore Garden Centre to get some plants

for his garden. Having selected some plants he realises he needs a
trolley. Rather than go back to the store entrance, he removes
some plants from another customer's trolley and uses it to carry
his own plants.

While wandering around the store he spots a special offer where if

you buy a lawnmower you get a free watering can. As Freddy
needs a new watering can he puts a lawnmower on his trolley. Two
days later, after purchasing the lawn mower, he returns the
lawnmower (which he does not need) and asks for a refund. He is
given a refund but he does not return the watering can. theft , fraud

He goes to look at some plant pots. He likes a large terracotta

planter but it is very expensive. He chips the rim of the planter with
his car keys and at the checkout points out to the cashier that the
pot is damaged and asks for a discount. He is allowed to buy the
pot with a 40% discount.

At the checkout the cashier asks Freddy how many plants he has
on his trolley. He has 10 but he tells the cashier he has eight. After
making all his purchases he loads them into his car in the car park.
He is too lazy to take the trolley back to the store entrance so he
pushes it away from his car. The trolley rolls to the edge of the car
park and falls into a ditch. Consider Freddy's liability, if any, arising
from these facts. [Q6/Part 2/Criminal Law/LA1010/2020/ZA]

Answer - in criminal law the property offences were previously distinct

following the common law and there was no clarity as to deception, theft
or fraud. However, the theft act 1968 and fraud act 2006 primarily
address these issues with the prime difference that theft is a result
crime and fraud is conduct crime. Previously , larceny act 1916 was in
place which as per russel v smith was regarded as exceedingly
technical. Fraud act 2006 concerned possible considerations like
problems with old law and its cure as well as prosecution to defend
against the fraud statute.

The first issue is whether Freddy could be charged with appropriation

under the theft act 1968. We first need to define under section 1(1) what
theft is, a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
other of it. Appropriation under section 3 is any assumption by a person
of the right of the owner and this includes where he has come by the
property innocently or not without stealing it, any later assumption of a
right of owner to it by keeping or dealing with it as the owner. In the
case of R v pitham assumption of any right of owner however trivial,
suffice for appropriation, offer to sell friend furniture was held to be
appropriation, in the case of R v morris it was held that the house of
lords confirmed that the appropriation was completed at the time he
defendant had assumed any but not all rights of the owner. In this case
the defendant appropriates the place when he switched the label even if
he had not been able to take the item. In the given scenario freddy won't
be held liable for appropriation because the trolly is of public use and he
didn't appropriated the property as that trolly was not a belonging of that
customer but of the gamore garden itself which is used to serve the
public to carry there plants

The second issue is whether Freddie could be held liable for theft as a
result of him not returning the watering can
As per distinguishing deception offenses or strength crime as well as
fraud crime. Fraud Act 2006 label fraud as known as a statutory offense.
it is early to talk about the impact of the act as well as the provision of
the such statute used prospectively. It is not relevant to determine the
issue with the old law, achievement a purpose of fraud act even the
most importantly the prosecution as well as defense attitude toward the
Act. As per the criminal standard of prove. Fraud is not known as the
resulting crime by which the conduct of the defendant conduct is to be
evaluated even not the loss caused to the victim.
As per the given script, we need to analyze the fraud act provision over
the conduct of Adam it does not matter whether received any loss.
However, the question is arise whether the Adam Act falls within the
cognizance fraud Act 2006. However, the reliance can be made upon
sections 2, 3, 11 linked with the element of dishonestly as well as
intention.
Whether Adam's act of switching labels attract criminal liability or not?
We shed light on section 2 Fraud act 2006 in which representation can
be made on conduct as well as expressed it falls within fraud act 2006
in which the defendant makes a false representation knowing that
statement is not true as well as misleading the truth. However, the
representation can be consist on facts which means it can be through
the statement or as well as conduct. The outcome of the statement is
irrelevant whole upon based on the conduct of the defendant. As far as
representation can be made through silence where it is important to
disclose a fact or putting false information in the machine also important
to proof the charge.
As per as the facts are concerned the act of Adam in which they intend
to buy the expensive shoes at a cheaper price is based on a false
representation. The reason behind is that they falsely represented the
shoes to the cash desk so they are liable under section 2 of false
representation. Moving toward the element of dishonestly section 2 theft
1968 Ghosh case this case give us two elements that is known as
objective as well as the subjective standard in order to determine
dishonestly objective element means as per reasonable man standard
what was done dishonestly. As per Ivey v Genting casinos, this case
overrules the Gosh test as well as changes the objective element Gosh
following Ivoy case. This means if the person falls under the element of
dishonestly or is to be decided by the judges as per standard ordinary
reasonable honest person.
As far as facts are concerned it is decided by the help of the jury to
keep in mind the reasonable man standard in which a reasonable
person cannot do the act which is done by adam in the current situation
for example matching shoes without the price label but they directly
asked to the authority for some discounted price.
the person falls under the element of dishonestly or is to decide by the
judges as per standard ordinary reasonable honest person.. As per the
given facts tell that Adam's intention to a wanted gain yourself wanted to
buy the product at a cheaper price while on the side Adam loss to shoe
company.
Whether the act of Adam taking his friend to a club without prior
information is fall under section 3 of the fraud act 2006 or not? Within
section 3 the charge the defendant is under the legal duty to disclose
the information. However, if the defendant fail to disclose the
information as the dishonest intent the charge is automatically proven.
However, the section is known as different from the deception. Since it
is irrelevant whether a person is actually be deceived or whether any
property is gained or even lost. It is important to shed light on the nature
of legal duty as well as presized relationship give a raise to that duty
and the information the defendant fail to disclose. The duty of disclose
is based upon the statute contract or common law or custom of a
particular trade or fiduciary relationship between the parties.
As per facts tell us that golf club charges an amount of money to the
guest. While the duty is on adam to give proper information to the guest
and collect the money from them. But he failed to do so which means
they fall under section 3 failure to disclose the information. Moving
toward the element of dishonestly section 2 theft 1968 Ghosh case this
case gives us two elements that is known as objective as well as the
subjective standard in order to determine dishonestly objective element
means as per reasonable man standard what was done dishonestly. As
per Ivey v Genting casinos, this case overrules the Gosh test as well as
changes the objective element Gosh following Ivoy case the person falls
under the element of dishonestly or is to be decided by the judges as
per standard ordinary reasonable honest person. As per the given the
reasonable person cannot do the same thing which is done by Adam
even if he collects the money from the guest and pay the golf club for
their facilities. Moving toward the embit of intention which means to
make a gain of yourself and causing the loss of another. The intention is
even direct as well as indirect and contains under section 5 fraud Act
2006. The intention is even in terms of money as well as property it can
be temporary or common. In a given situation, the intention in the term
of money and the gain of adam and his guest while the loss of the golf
club.
Whether the salesperson representation is fall under section 2 or not? It
is a fair representation at the time when the salesmen have given to the
eve because there was no new model launched at that time. As well as
falls under section 3 which fails to disclose the correct information.
Because the shopkeeper is under the duty to give the correct and
relevant information to their customer but they failed to give an update
for their new model as the result they fall under such section,
Moving toward the element of dishonestly section 2 theft 1968 Ghosh
case this case give us two elements that is known as objective as well
as the subjective standard in order to determine dishonestly objective
element means as per reasonable man standard what was done
dishonestly. As per Ivey v Genting casinos, this case overrules the Gosh
test as well as changes the objective element of Gosh following Ivory
case the person fall under the element of dishonestly or is to decide by
the judges as per standard ordinary reasonable honest person. As per
reasonable person have the proper knowledge about the model and
give proper information to their customer. The element of intention is
even in terms of money as well as property it can be temporary or
common, which means the intention is not clear to give the correct
information to the customer.
Whether the untrue story of adm toward his uncle fall under section 2 of
fraud act 2006. ? We shed light on section 2 of Fraud act 2006 in which
representation can be made on conduct as well as expressed it falls
within fraud act 2006 in which defendant makes a false representation
knowing that statement is not true as well as misleading the truth. As
per the facts tell us that not the true story of his brother bingo told to his
uncle as the result they wossters. As per the dishonest element? We
shed light on section 2 Fraud act 2006 in which representation can be
made on conduct as well as expressed it falls within fraud act 2006 in
which the defendant makes a false representation knowing that
statement is not true as well as misleading the truth. The reasonable
person at this situation was given the true story or information because
he was his brother. Then the Wooster will not cut at that time even the
death of wossters cannot happen

Jane prop
 1. Whether Roger's statement regarding vegetables to be
organic attract criminal liability under section 2 fraud act
2006? Define s2 with 1 case , actus reus, relate, relate.
2. Section 2, foreign coin whether rogers foreign coin insertion
at a car wash attract fraud by false representation?
3. Whether Rogers' availing of car wash services and petrol
without payment be sufficient to establish fraud
liability.section 3 theft act 1978, making off without payment,
section 11, section 11, obtaining services dishonestly,
section 2.
4. Mens rea ikhattay likhna

General defences
1. Necessity
2. Duress
3. Self defence
4. Automatism
5. Intoxication
Within the preamble of defences the evidential basis may take the form of
excuse or justifications, under failure of proof defences the coincidence of
actus reus and mens rea is not being satisfied while under affirmative
defences, although proof of offence is satisfied but circumstances encouraged
the defendant to take an action. With regards to the facts concerned we will
elaborate upon the defence of necessity as well as duress of circumstances in
relation to sim overspeeding. With respect to ritas punching of moeen, we may
base our argument upon automatism defence and a weak possibility of self
defence. Lastly, under part C we need to legitimise the actions by David and
Ben with regards to consent and a lawful benefit or public policy attached to it.

a. Necessity - define necessity, two types necessity as excuse, necessity

as justification, 2-3 cases perka v the queen defo deina, elate as to
necessity as excuse, duress of circumstances alternatively discuss, 2-3
cases,
b. Automatism, 2 types btana, sane automatism, insane automatism 2
cases each, possibility btana hai internal factor bhi, external factor bhi,
possibility of self defence, section 3 of criminal law act 1967 1-2 cases
and relate and rule out the possibility of self defence.
c. Specific defence of OAPA is consent, defence of consent should be
accompanied by a lawful reason, fully informed, and based on public
policy, 3 cases, consent to fight is never valid, solution is police
complaint.legitimate interest