Law-Criminology

Analysis of Criminal Case

[Name of the Instructor]

Analysis of Criminal Case

The law area which is said to be in question is concerning murder when it comes to Jake, Karishma and Alice. Technically Bob is said to be guilty considering that he had unforeseeable actions towards Jake and Karishma and all those who were impacted by inhaling smoke. Furthermore, Murder is said to be the most serious of crimes when it comes to the category of unlawful homicide. An individual is said to be taking a life of another individual consciously with malice (Herring, 2011, pp.120).

Under the British law an individual is said to be convicted of crime when two elements are involved. The two elements are Actus Rea and Mens Rea must be present to make the case relevant. It is these 2 elements which tend to provide information in relation to the circumstances which has led one individual to commit a hideous crime like murdering and taking the life of an innocent individual (www.historycooperative.org). The crime of murder is taken seriously since it is the crime which took place under the Queens peace. Before the case can further be analyzed and discussed it is mandatory to know what Mens Rea is and how can it prove one guilty when it comes to the case of Karishma, Jake and Bob (Herring, 2011, pp.120).

Mens Rea is concerned with an individual's intention to take the life of an individual. There is said to be two kinds of intention involved in Mens Rea, first being the fact that the person has the desire or the purpose to inflict harm and the second being the consequence or a by product of an individual's action (See, 2004, pp.35). With respect to the case study Bob didn't have a direct intention with Karishma and Jake yet had a direct intention with Alice. The leading case in relation to such an instance with the House of Lords is Woolin. Past cases should also be considered to develop a deep understanding and reach to a conclusion (Smith, 1998).

Hyam versus DPP is said to be a similar case whereby House of Lords had perceived high probability of equalled intention. Lord Bridge in the later case of Moloney also stated to the jury that should always ask 2 questions in relation to indirect intent. The first being whether it was a natural consequence and that whether the individual was aware of the consequences of the action (Gross, 2005, pp. 56).

Hancock and Shankland was another case where there was a high intention that was found as the courts were able to hold greater probability with respect to the consequence. There is more likely to be probability that the consequences of the current case were foreseen as the crime was committed. If that consequence was already foreseen then the higher the intention was to commit the crime and hence it is this aspect which makes it highly probable. Later a test was also applied to see the degree to which the intention ...