llb law

Rizwaana

Anyone studied criminal law,need help with a scenario

Reply 1

Tasha0

studying criminal law now, what's the scenario?

Reply 2

Rizwaana

During the World Cup Final, Riaz, Punjabistan’s opening batsman, made his maiden century. Foulkner, the opposing teams wicket-keeper, rather than congratulating Riaz, swore at him. Riaz felt very upset and angry.
After the match, Riaz suggested to big Urfy, the 7 foot tall fast baller and his team-mate that they kill Foulkner because he had insulted him and Punjabistan. Urfy did not want to get involved as he was a gentle giant and a peacemaker at heart. However he felt pressured and told Riaz that he could count on him. Khan and Tahir both agreed to assist with the murder of Foulkner, Tahir taking on the role of a look-out.
Urfy went to work on the day the murder was planned to take place. Riaz and Khan went to Foulkner `s house where they both forced arsenic down Foulkner `s throat resulting in his immediate death. Whilst they were doing this, Tahir distracted a couple of police officers who heard Foulkner`s cries for help.

Reply 3

Tasha0

In regards to the liability of Riaz, Khan and Tahir:

Riaz had been insulted by Foulkner, Riaz, Urfy Tahir and Khan all intended to be a part of the murder of Foulkner

Riaz and Khan were the two who caused the death as they forced arsenic down F's throat - if it hadn't been for this act then F would not be dead. They had the actus reus (forcing arsenic down his throat) and the mens rea required for murder (intention to kill) and so would be liable for first degree murder as they had intended to kill and planned it out.

It cannot be argued that Riaz was provoked by being insulted (it could be but there isn't much likeliness that it would help as a defence) as no reasonable person would have acted in this way after being sworn (the objective element) at as he wasn't exposed to enough provocation to be able to justify his later actions. It may instead be argued that Riaz acted as a desire for revenge for being sworn at and in the latter case, there would be no defence.

Urfy failed by omission to tell anyone, especially the police of the fact that Khan and Riaz were planning to murder Foulkner.

By distracting the police, Tahir would be considered an accomplice and would be held liable under the serious crimes act 2007 s45 - encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed, it can be argued that Urfy would also be held liable under this act.

The entire group were essentially joint perpetrators as they engaged together with the common purpose that an offence would be committed. Although they were all perpetrators for the same offence it is likely they would be charged with different things, apart from Riaz and Khan who would both be charged with first degree murder.
For first degree murder there is a mandatory life sentence for intentional killing, killing with the intent to cause serious injury and awareness of a serious risk of death although the sentence would be up to the judge.

llb law

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you