[krayziebone]

Michael suffers from severe depression. One day he was driving to work when Jayne drove into the back of his car. Michael was very angry. He got out of his car, opened the door of Jayne's car and pulled her out. As Jayne was pulled from the car, she banged her head on the car door. Michael shouted at her and then got back into his own car and drove off. Jayne was left badly shaken and with a severe headache, but did not seek medical advice until late that evening when the headache became unbearable. Jayne's husband Brian drove her to the hospital, she was treated by Fred, an inexperienced junior doctor who treated her injuries but failed to realise that Jayne had a blood clot on the brain as a result of banging her head earlier that day. Jayne later died that night.

^^^^ ok so im confused about this scenario, im not sure whether Michael has the mens rea of murder or not. firstly it seems that michael just dragged her out of the car because he was pissed off. But then again Jayne sustained injuries and under the mens rea of murder Michael has the implied malice which is intention to cause GBH.

which is right please help !!

[vahik92]

(Original post by krayziebone)
Michael suffers from severe depression. One day he was driving to work when Jayne drove into the back of his car. Michael was very angry. He got out of his car, opened the door of Jayne's car and pulled her out. As Jayne was pulled from the car, she banged her head on the car door. Michael shouted at her and then got back into his own car and drove off. Jayne was left badly shaken and with a severe headache, but did not seek medical advice until late that evening when the headache became unbearable. Jayne's husband Brian drove her to the hospital, she was treated by Fred, an inexperienced junior doctor who treated her injuries but failed to realise that Jayne had a blood clot on the brain as a result of banging her head earlier that day. Jayne later died that night.

^^^^ ok so im confused about this scenario, im not sure whether Michael has the mens rea of murder or not. firstly it seems that michael just dragged her out of the car because he was pissed off. But then again Jayne sustained injuries and under the mens rea of murder Michael has the implied malice which is intention to cause GBH.

which is right please help !!

In an question like this, you do not need to say whether Michael has a mens rea for murder (intent) or not! That's what the members of the jury are there for! If a question likes this comes up in an exam, this is what you do for a first class answer.

Michael could be liable for murder. Murder is killing with intent. Killing, the actus reus, will be established if Michael's act resulted in a significant cause of death and absent any possible interventions breaking the causation (which you would describe in later paragraphs). Then you say if causation is established, then intent needs to also be established to have all the elements of murder. Intent is a question of fact and will be decided by the jury. THE FACTS GIVEN IN THE QUESTION ARE INSUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE WHETHER MICHAEL INTENDED TO KILL JAYNE OR NOT. If the jury decides that Michael did intend to kill Jayne, then he will be liable for murder, otherwise... (consider other liabilities e.g. manslaughter).

Jurors are sometimes taken to the place of death, given all the facts, all the evidence before they make a conclusion whether the defendand should be liable or not - you can't make the same conclusion by just 2 - 3 sentence on the exam paper, so make sure you don't reach a conclusion but mention that the jury will decide whether Michael had intent or not and analyse the consequences of both possibilities. At most, you may say that for example "Michael's hostility may suggest that he did have intent to kill Jayne, but the ultimate decision will be the jury's".

Does this help?

[krayziebone]

(Original post by vahik92)
In an question like this, you do not need to say whether Michael has a mens rea for murder (intent) or not! That's what the members of the jury are there for! If a question likes this comes up in an exam, this is what you do for a first class answer.

Michael could be liable for murder. Murder is killing with intent. Killing, the actus reus, will be established if Michael's act resulted in a significant cause of death and absent any possible interventions breaking the causation (which you would describe in later paragraphs). Then you say if causation is established, then intent needs to also be established to have all the elements of murder. Intent is a question of fact and will be decided by the jury. THE FACTS GIVEN IN THE QUESTION ARE INSUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE WHETHER MICHAEL INTENDED TO KILL JAYNE OR NOT. If the jury decides that Michael did intend to kill Jayne, then he will be liable for murder, otherwise... (consider other liabilities e.g. manslaughter).

Jurors are sometimes taken to the place of death, given all the facts, all the evidence before they make a conclusion whether the defendand should be liable or not - you can't make the same conclusion by just 2 - 3 sentence on the exam paper, so make sure you don't reach a conclusion but mention that the jury will decide whether Michael had intent or not and analyse the consequences of both possibilities. At most, you may say that for example "Michael's hostility may suggest that he did have intent to kill Jayne, but the ultimate decision will be the jury's".

Does this help?

yeah thanks that helps, say if I answered this question full on like this:
Cokes definition on murder
actus reus
causation
mens rea of murder
and defences eg provocation, diminished responsibility

would i get low marks? because this style of essay is intending that michael had the mens rea of murder.

[vahik92]

(Original post by krayziebone)
yeah thanks that helps, say if I answered this question full on like this:
Cokes definition on murder
actus reus
causation
mens rea of murder
and defences eg provocation, diminished responsibility

would i get low marks? because this style of essay is intending that michael had the mens rea of murder.

I suggest a structure like this:

• Possible Murder by Michael - this includes analysis of both actus reus (causation in particular is tricky, is there any actus novus interveniens by either Jayne or the doctor?) and mens rea
• If murder is established then defences for murder - provocation in here
• If no murder is established then consider Manslaughter by Unlawful Act
• Then talk about the doctor and her potential liability for manslaughter by gross negligence

The question asks you to consider not just murder but also the liabilities above so you can't get away with just writing about murder and yes, if you do write only about murder you probably won't get anything higher than a third class. That's one important and vital part of any law essay - to see the student has identified ALL the issues - so make sure you know all the laws as well as you do the law on murder because in uni you almost never will get a question on murder alone - you will have to know all the manslaughter laws as well.

[Hopple]

(Original post by krayziebone)
Michael suffers from severe depression. One day he was driving to work when Jayne drove into the back of his car. Michael was very angry. He got out of his car, opened the door of Jayne's car and pulled her out. As Jayne was pulled from the car, she banged her head on the car door. Michael shouted at her and then got back into his own car and drove off. Jayne was left badly shaken and with a severe headache, but did not seek medical advice until late that evening when the headache became unbearable. Jayne's husband Brian drove her to the hospital, she was treated by Fred, an inexperienced junior doctor who treated her injuries but failed to realise that Jayne had a blood clot on the brain as a result of banging her head earlier that day. Jayne later died that night.

^^^^ ok so im confused about this scenario, im not sure whether Michael has the mens rea of murder or not. firstly it seems that michael just dragged her out of the car because he was pissed off. But then again Jayne sustained injuries and under the mens rea of murder Michael has the implied malice which is intention to cause GBH.

which is right please help !!

Seems similar to Ian Tomlinson.

[krayziebone]

(Original post by vahik92)
I suggest a structure like this:

• Possible Murder by Michael - this includes analysis of both actus reus (causation in particular is tricky, is there any actus novus interveniens by either Jayne or the doctor?) and mens rea
• If murder is established then defences for murder - provocation in here
• If no murder is established then consider Manslaughter by Unlawful Act
• Then talk about the doctor and her potential liability for manslaughter by gross negligence

The question asks you to consider not just murder but also the liabilities above so you can't get away with just writing about murder and yes, if you do write only about murder you probably won't get anything higher than a third class. That's one important and vital part of any law essay - to see the student has identified ALL the issues - so make sure you know all the laws as well as you do the law on murder because in uni you almost never will get a question on murder alone - you will have to know all the manslaughter laws as well.

would there not be diminished responsibility too? due to the fact that Michael suffers from severe depression.

[vahik92]

(Original post by krayziebone)
would there not be diminished responsibility too? due to the fact that Michael suffers from severe depression.

It may be relevant, I suggest you revise it and see whether it can apply in here, I don't remember a single law on diminished responsibility as I did it a long time ago But yeah I think you're spot on, you should analyse diminished responsibility as well along with provocation.

[QStah]

It seems that his intention was to drag her out of the car to shout at her, she just happened to bang her head during the altercation however i think its clear from his actions that he could forsee the concequences of her banging her head or getting hurt in some way whilst dragging her out as a virtual certainty.
So i think his mens rea could be that of oblique intent - and because murder is a specific intent crime, you could go ahead and explain that he could be prosecuted for involuntary mansluaghter and go onto to talk about Unlawful act, involuntary manslaughter as it seems that the criteria is there
- act is unlawful (battery&assault which caused ABH)
- act must be dangerous
- def must have mens rea for unlawful act
- act must cause death - and from here you can talk about the novus intervenus of the doc failing to realise the bloodclot which could potentially find Micheal not liable for the death.

Also you could use the defence of diminished responsibility.

Sorry if this answer seems abit all over the place.