Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    ghj
    Offline

    21
    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

    6
    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 !
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: January 27, 2017
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

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

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