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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ghj
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    What a tricky situation.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    IDK, but good luck!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A good way to start will be to use headings in structuring your answer . Actus Reus, Causation , Mens Rea , Defence .
    Lucas in relation to Barney :
    As a prosecutor you will try to charge Lucas of murder , by proving beyond any doubt that Actus Reus and Mens Rea are satisfied for the offence and there is no defence .
    AR - unlawful killing of another human being under the queen's peace. This won't be hard to prove . Than , establish legal and factual causation. Factual causation : But for - test (R v White ), and than legal causation : D's act should be a substantial and an operative cause of V's death . This is the point where it gets a bit tricky. If you can prove that Luca's joke of scaring Barney is an substantial cause - more than something law consider de minimus, more than trivial . At this point is up to the prosecutor will have to prove if Lucas desire of giving Barney a fright - and joking aside current situation is not seen as trivial that the defendant's act is a substantial cause of V's death . Operative cause - should be one of the reasons of V's death ,it shouldn't be the only cause. Was D's act blameworthy ? R v Dalloway - in this case D was not guilty as despite of him holding the rains , he wouldn't have been able to stop it in time - therefore his act was not an operative cause . Novus Actus Interveniens : - Barney heart condition and his refusal of receiving treatment . Intervention act from the victim . There is a principle in criminal law that will protect all of us , despite our medical condition - Take the victim as you find it , or the egg shall skull rule - R v Blaue , where V refused blood transfusion due to religious belief - Courts held that V is an integer person and that religion is part of the person , therefore D was liable for murder. As proved above , Lucas by his desire of scaring Brain might be the cause in fact and law of V's death , as V's intervention didn't brake the chain of causation.

    MR - intention to kill or to cause GBH . From the facts is unlikely that the jury will find intention in this case as he wanted only to ‘give Barney a fright.’and he used a fake hummer. If MR of murder cannot be satisfied , D didn't committed the offence of murder . However , if recklessness can be proved , taking on an unjustified risk - subjective Cunningham test - than he can be convicted of manslaughter . Did the D foresee the risk that occurred in fact ? Did D realised that the risk might have occurred as a result of his actions and he took the risk anyway ? From the facts we can argue that it could have been the case that Lucas to have been reckless - for the jury to decide .

    Lucas might be found liable of manslaughter , as a defence from the facts is hard to find.


    Following this structure you should analyse Freddie's liability .
    Hopefully it helps !
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adinutza)
    A good way to start will be to use headings in structuring your answer . Actus Reus, Causation , Mens Rea , Defence .
    Lucas in relation to Barney :
    As a prosecutor you will try to charge Lucas of murder , by proving beyond any doubt that Actus Reus and Mens Rea are satisfied for the offence and there is no defence .
    AR - unlawful killing of another human being under the queen's peace. This won't be hard to prove . Than , establish legal and factual causation. Factual causation : But for - test (R v White ), and than legal causation : D's act should be a substantial and an operative cause of V's death . This is the point where it gets a bit tricky. If you can prove that Luca's joke of scaring Barney is an substantial cause - more than something law consider de minimus, more than trivial . At this point is up to the prosecutor will have to prove if Lucas desire of giving Barney a fright - and joking aside current situation is not seen as trivial that the defendant's act is a substantial cause of V's death . Operative cause - should be one of the reasons of V's death ,it shouldn't be the only cause. Was D's act blameworthy ? R v Dalloway - in this case D was not guilty as despite of him holding the rains , he wouldn't have been able to stop it in time - therefore his act was not an operative cause . Novus Actus Interveniens : - Barney heart condition and his refusal of receiving treatment . Intervention act from the victim . There is a principle in criminal law that will protect all of us , despite our medical condition - Take the victim as you find it , or the egg shall skull rule - R v Blaue , where V refused blood transfusion due to religious belief - Courts held that V is an integer person and that religion is part of the person , therefore D was liable for murder. As proved above , Lucas by his desire of scaring Brain might be the cause in fact and law of V's death , as V's intervention didn't brake the chain of causation.

    MR - intention to kill or to cause GBH . From the facts is unlikely that the jury will find intention in this case as he wanted only to ‘give Barney a fright.’and he used a fake hummer. If MR of murder cannot be satisfied , D didn't committed the offence of murder . However , if recklessness can be proved , taking on an unjustified risk - subjective Cunningham test - than he can be convicted of manslaughter . Did the D foresee the risk that occurred in fact ? Did D realised that the risk might have occurred as a result of his actions and he took the risk anyway ? From the facts we can argue that it could have been the case that Lucas to have been reckless - for the jury to decide .

    Lucas might be found liable of manslaughter , as a defence from the facts is hard to find.


    Following this structure you should analyse Freddie's liability .
    Hopefully it helps !

    THANKS A TON x
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sabakahmed)
    THANKS A TON x
    Welcome !
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.