The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

criminal Law problem Q! pls help!

Hi I know this is pretty simple and straight forward, this is part of the problem Q:

D was taking some drugs and falls asleep and he later wakes up to discover the basement is on fire. He runs away and does not call the fire brigade or anyone else. Unluckily the fire spreads and the V who was asleep on the upper floor is killed.
Now it doesn't mention whether or not the D knew the V was in the house or not.
The q is discuss the criminal liability of the D if any for the death of the Victim.
The word limit is 500 words but I cannot think of anything except for recklessness to talk about.
thanks
Reply 1
Avatar for mirshan
mirshan
That's a question dealing with recklessness (Cunningham Recklessness). Have to argue what Ds liability is towards recklessly causing the fire. then argue the liability had D known that V was in the house (here you can perhaps touch on a bit on Omission eg. R v Miller [1983], or whether one could establish a duty of care of some sort. Then discuss what would be the case D genuinely did not know or believe that V was in the house. use the case law, there are very similar cases like this. and that will be it.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Asalm
Hi I know this is pretty simple and straight forward, this is part of the problem Q:

D was taking some drugs and falls asleep and he later wakes up to discover the basement is on fire. He runs away and does not call the fire brigade or anyone else. Unluckily the fire spreads and the V who was asleep on the upper floor is killed.
Now it doesn't mention whether or not the D knew the V was in the house or not.
The q is discuss the criminal liability of the D if any for the death of the Victim.
The word limit is 500 words but I cannot think of anything except for recklessness to talk about.
thanks


You would have to talk about how D has failed to fix a dangerous situation (like in R v Miller) and then discuss Indirect/Oblique Intent (R v Nedrick). That goes into detail about how D didn't know V was in the house, but by failing to fix the dangerous situation he created, it was a virtual certainty that someone could get injured/killed.
Reply 3
Avatar for Asalm
Asalm
OP
2
Original post by RattyAbz04
You would have to talk about how D has failed to fix a dangerous situation (like in R v Miller) and then discuss Indirect/Oblique Intent (R v Nedrick). That goes into detail about how D didn't know V was in the house, but by failing to fix the dangerous situation he created, it was a virtual certainty that someone could get injured/killed.


Thank you so much
Reply 4
Avatar for Asalm
Asalm
OP
2
Original post by mirshan
That's a question dealing with recklessness (Cunningham Recklessness). Have to argue what Ds liability is towards recklessly causing the fire. then argue the liability had D known that V was in the house (here you can perhaps touch on a bit on Omission eg. R v Miller [1983], or whether one could establish a duty of care of some sort. Then discuss what would be the case D genuinely did not know or believe that V was in the house. use the case law, there are very similar cases like this. and that will be it.




Thank you so so much
It about the common law duty set up in R v Miller [1986] UKHL, but in that case a duty is triggered as you have created a danger. In this case you never created the danger, who is to say where the fire came from, so I would most likely fail, in my opinion

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you