CRIMINAL LAW QUESTION

Criminal law question

Criminal law question

On the facts in the scenario, it would appear that Walter could be charged for injuring Angella, as his actions were reckless and intentional he did not think for a moment that his feelings were not as important as the person's life and was not supposed to react even if Angela laughed as it was of no consequence. The school administration should have kept account that Walter is schizoprenic and can react in an unreasonable way. In Logdon v DPP (1976) Alan was 'convinced that Bob was coming to knock him off his stepladder', he was aware of impending violence. As for the need for 'immediate violence', this test also appears to be satisfied. The cases of Ireland (1998) and Constanza (1997) confirm that words or even silent phone calls can constitute the actus reus of assault. (Ashworth Craemer 2002 Pp. 12)

There is no evidence of intention on Walter's part from the statement that he had 'merely wanted to have a friendly chat'.

However, Angela's death was not fully due to Walter's slap bearing the fact that in R v Smith [1959] 2 All ER 193, the accused stabbed the victim in a barrack room brawl. The victim was dropped twice while being taken to the medical orderly who failed to diagnose the full extent of his wounds.

Not surprisingly the victim died, but the accused's conviction for murder was upheld as the court held that as the original wound was still an operating cause of death the chain of causation was not broken. Similarly in R v Cheshire (above), on facts similar to R v Jordan, the Court of Appeal upheld the accused's conviction for murder, Beldam LJ stating: 'it will only be in the most extraordinary and unusual case that such treatment can be said to be so independent of the acts of the accused that it could be regarded in law as the cause of the victim's death to the exclusion of the accused's act'. If it was, this defence was available, subject to the jury then deciding whether the defendant's craving for alcohol was irresistible or not; but the fact that some drink was consumed voluntarily would not necessarily deprive the defendant of this defence. probably would not have killed his victim.

In R v Humphreys (1995), it was held that even relatively minor provocation can be considered to determine the issue of loss of self-control, where the cumulative effect could be considered in terms of the 'final straw' element of provocation which caused the victim to 'snap'. R v Morhall (1996) considerably widened the 'reasonable man' test to include repugnant characteristics. Lord Goff in his judgement (House of Lords) went so far as to include a rapist or paedophile who had just been released from prison and had been subjected to provocation specifically directed at his criminal record. In such cases, the jury would have to be directed to consider the gravity of the provocation for such a person with ...