Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter

    Hey guys, I joined a Law Academy ECA at the start of grade 10 (this year) run by one of the teachers and we have a moot court/case competition in 2 weeks and I need some help over the weekend! <3

    My case is R v Ola James and this is a brief summary of it.
    "A committed environmentalist campaigner, entered a farm belonging to jeff archer who was a farmer participating in countrywide experiments to discover whether genetically modified crops were safe and she was determined to destroy as much crop being grown on his farm as she could. On the evening of september 14th 2014, she wrote on her blog "I am going to make J Archer and his family pay for what they are doing".

    She set fire to the crop and the shed propped up against the house by using a can of petrol and box of matches. She succeed and set fire to a substantial part of the crop and the shed took to flames very quickly. The fire however soon spread to a number of sheds and outhouses that she had NOT INTENDED to burn. The shed against the main farm caused the farmhouse to go up in flames, she then got terrified and drove off.

    Jeff returned back and tried to rescue his wife and small son from burning building but it was too late, his son had managed to escape onto the roof of the house where the flames were not present. Scared he jumped to escape and died due to injuries caused by the fall, had he stayed on the roof he would have survived."

    I have to appeal that "If found to have the required mens rea, the defendent is not guilty for murder with regards to the kid as her acts did not directly cause the death".

    I need 3 points (idk the legal term for it! Whoosp) is going to be on the foreseeability and I plan to appeal that the What was foreseeable was that the crops would get catch fire and worst situation, the shed too. But the fact that the fire spread from the shed to the house where the kid was safe but thought he would die and decided to jump off is unforeseeable. Hence she is not responsible for the manslaughter of the kid but only for burning the crops and shed which makes it arson and not manslaughter.

    Victim's own action and that his decision to jump off the roof was unreasonable and also the injuries indicate the death to be due to the fall and not the fire hence she is not responsible for it.

    I am having trouble finding one more point for this defense! I thought of doing the chain of causation but would that not be the same as victim's own action. Also the but for test would be deemed invalid as if it was not for the fire that she set, the kid would have not jumped right? I just need some comments on my 2 points and ideas for the third!
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.