CRIMINAL LAW



Criminal Law

Criminal Law

1. Was their conduct equally dangerous?

Ans. With regard to the scenario each of them have the relevant mens rea and actus reus for the particular offence. The mens rea for manslaughter centres upon whether or not the defendant killed with malice aforethought (i.e. an intention to kill or cause really serious harm).

2. Should they be punished in the same way?

Ans. In case of Bob we can liken the following R v. Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 Concerning: legal causation, multiple causes Facts To avoid arrest, the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield and fired at armed police. The police returned fire, hitting and killing the girl. The defendant was held to be the legal cause of death despite causing no physical injury himself as he set in motion the chain of events that led to death and it was foreseeable that the police would return fire. Legal principle It was held that the defendant's act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of death provided it is a cause in that it 'contributed significantly to that result' (per Robert Goff LJ at 290). Pagett is a good illustration of the policy underlying legal causation. He did not fire the shot that killed the victim but he was liable for her death as his was the most blameworthy act in the events leading to her death. This approach is reflected in the medical negligence cases in which only 'palpably wrong' medical treatment will relieve the person inflicting the initial wound of liability (see Figure 2.5). The defendant in Cheshire remained liable despite the contribution of the negligent treatment to the victim's death because the defendant's wrongdoing put the victim in the position where medical treatment was needed. As the House of Lords said in Cheshire, misdiagnosis and routine errors are inevitable and it is therefore foreseeable as a result of causing a person to suffer injury. Only in cases such as Jordan where the treatment given to the victim was 'palpably wrong' would it break the chain of causation and remove liability for causing death from the defendant. (Lester, D. and Lester, G. 1975 Pp. 12-16)

Problem area: multiple causes of death As Pagett and Cheshire demonstrate, the most immediate cause of death is not always the legal cause. To put it another way, supervening acts which contribute to death will not necessarily absolve the defendant of liability for causing death. Therefore, it is not always a straightforward matter to select which of the causes of death will be the legal cause. Glanville Williams describes legal causation as a 'moral reaction' that determines 'whether the result can fairly be said to be imputable to the defendant'. In cases involving multiple causes, follow the chain of events backwards from death in search of the most culpable act as this will usually be the legal cause.

3. What difference does it make that bob has poor aim? fully ...