Aldeeyego
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Ok guys so I have a history of not knowing how to structure my essays. They always say my IRAC is all over the place and that I don't know how to approach the essay.

Could someone please tell me how to structure this?

I see 2 offences, hurting the wrist and the death caused by leaving her on the floor.
No defences. Am I right?


Robbie and Sarah go on a four-day camping trip in the wilderness. Each day
they walk around 15 miles, using a map and compass to track their way, and
then camp out over-night. They make good progress on the first and second day,
but on the third day after they come to a break in the path they were following,
which had two alternative routes off it, they get lost. Sarah and Robbie have a
disagreement about which way to go. Sarah, who had the map and compass in
her pocket, argues that they should take the path leading right. Robbie, who
thinks all women are rubbish at directions, grabs the map roughly from her,
causing Sarah, who has a weak ankle, to stumble backwards and fall, hurting
her wrist. Robbie insists that he knows best and that they should take the lefthand
path. Sarah reluctantly agrees to go the way suggested by Robbie.
After walking for about three hours they realise they are lost. It is starting to get
dark. Neither have a mobile phone signal and so they cannot call for help. They
decide to find a suitable place to camp for the night and try to get their way
back onto the correct track the following morning when it is light. The
following day they set off early. However, by mid-afternoon they realise that
they are not making any progress. At this stage, both of their tempers are frayed
as both are very worried about the situation they are in. They have been arguing
most of the day about directions, with Sarah repeatedly telling Robbie that
everything is his fault. They decide to take a rest and have some food. Sarah
says they need to take stock of their food reserves and ration what they eat to
ensure they have enough food to survive. Robbie tells her that he has eaten all
his food. Furious Sarah starts screaming at Robbie. She seems completely out of
control. When she grabs a large stone and raises her arm, Robbie thinks she is
going to hit him on the head with it and kill him. Panicked, he grabs one of the
poles for his tent from his bag, and swipes at Sarah’s legs to try to knock her down. Sarah stumbles and falls, hitting her head against a tree stump. She falls
unconscious. Robbie tries to revive her, but although she is still breathing, she
doesn’t wake up. In a panic, Robbie grabs his bag, and the map and compass,
and flees the scene.
Two hours later he makes his way back onto a path that leads to a road. He hails
down a passing car and tells them that rescue is needed for his friend who fell
and hit her head. By the time help arrives Sarah is dead. A post-mortem shows
that she died from a poisonous snake bite sustained whilst lying unconscious. It
also shows a broken wrist from the earlier fall.

Assess the criminal liability of Robbie
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
What does the question actually ask - specifically?

Discuss the liability of x or y or both, and for which classes of offence?
0
reply
Aldeeyego
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
Oh yeh sorry, Its Assess the criminal liability of Robbie
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Aldeeyego)
I see 2 offences, hurting the wrist and the death caused by leaving her on the floor.
Those are not offences. Hurting the wrist could be battery or failing that assault. It might be ABH or GBH. Leaving someone to die is not an offence, is it? Unless there's a duty of care, which might come about if I cause your dependency.

If you're a complete stranger dying on the floor, and I continue walking because I am enjoying a nice ice cream, I am not going to prison. What you mean is not that there are two offences but that there are two "events" in that scenario.

The moment in which the injury to the wrist happened; and the moment where she died.

For the latter. You have a) homicidal offences (murder, invol man and vol man) and b) non-homicidal offences (assault/batt, ABH, GBH).

For the former. You have a) non-injury offences (assault/att) and b) injury offences (ABH and GBH). You should also consider the effect of roughly pulling the map -- assault maybe? If not, why not?

You obviously explain the mens rea and actus reus of each offence. For example, murder -- intention to cause death or really serious harm. Knocking someone on the leg with a stick really serious harm? Maybe not.

No defences. Am I right?
For the death, there is potentially an argument of self-defence. Assault to ABH and then to unlawful act manslaughter and then murder depends on an "unlawful" act.

For death there's a potential novus actus, of a snake outta nowhere, breaking the chain of causation. Not a defence, as doesn't excuse a proven "murder"; causation needs to be satisfied first for a murder to have been committed in the first place.

Gross negligence manslaughter is a little different; the unlawful act is how negligent the defendant is and first you must establish a duty of care. Is there a duty owed?
0
reply
Aldeeyego
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by Notoriety)
For death there's a potential novus actus, of a snake outta nowhere, breaking the chain of causation. Not a defence, as doesn't excuse a proven "murder"; causation needs to be satisfied first for a murder to have been committed in the first place.

Would you say theres a break in the chain?
Since when applying the but for test, had robbie not left her unconcious she may have survived.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by Aldeeyego)
Would you say theres a break in the chain?
Since when applying the but for test, had robbie not left her unconcious she may have survived.
But break in the chain is gonna be asked after the but-for test has been satisfied.

And you have the culpable causation test, for complex cases. Get yaself on Westlaw Insight or re-read your textbook, pal.

Your problem is not so much structure but your not understanding rather fundamental concepts of criminal law -- which is a good thing. You can easily fix that by spending a day or two relearning everything. Fixing structure is a little more "nuanced" and comes from experience.
0
reply
Aldeeyego
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Notoriety)
But break in the chain is gonna be asked after the but-for test has been satisfied.

And you have the culpable causation test, for complex cases. Get yaself on Westlaw Insight or re-read your textbook, pal.

Your problem is not so much structure but your not understanding rather fundamental concepts of criminal law -- which is a good thing. You can easily fix that by spending a day or two relearning everything. Fixing structure is a little more "nuanced" and comes from experience.
Thank you very much for helping me with this.

I did some heavy research and this is what I've got

For the pulling hard on the map, you haven't got an assault since there was no intention to cause ABH.

For the death you have the act of hitting her, D intended to cause some harm to protect himself but not to kill her.
Intention of self defence (s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that: "A person may use such force)
She became unconscious, creation of a dangerous situation.
Leaves her and goes away.
Snake bites her, unforeseeable, so Novus actus intervienns
So D is not liable for her death.

Am I correct?

I need to submit this tonight, so please tell me what you think.

Thanks Again!
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Aldeeyego)
Thank you very much for helping me with this.

I did some heavy research and this is what I've got

For the pulling hard on the map, you haven't got an assault since there was no intention to cause ABH.

For the death you have the act of hitting her, D intended to cause some harm to protect himself but not to kill her.
Intention of self defence (s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that: "A person may use such force)
She became unconscious, creation of a dangerous situation.
Leaves her and goes away.
Snake bites her, unforeseeable, so Novus actus intervienns
So D is not liable for her death.

Am I correct?

I need to submit this tonight, so please tell me what you think.

Thanks Again!
no intention to cause abh is not the mens rea of assault; it's intentionally or recklessly causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful force, in other words to apprehend battery
0
reply
Aldeeyego
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Notoriety)
no intention to cause abh is not the mens rea of assault; it's intentionally or recklessly causing another to apprehend immediate unlawful force, in other words to apprehend battery
Yeh I just shortened it in my own words, however since the scenario shows Robbie did not intend to cause any harm to her, is he not liable for any harm that was caused, i.e the breaking of her wrist?
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Aldeeyego)
Yeh I just shortened it in my own words, however since the scenario shows Robbie did not intend to cause any harm to her, is he not liable for any harm that was caused, i.e the breaking of her wrist?
He can be reckless and still commit assault. And you're jumping ahead. Assault is causing apprehension; her to go "oh ****, he's gonna jab us". Was he reckless as to this?

Whether he is direct cause of the wrist break is another question. Not going to get into that; it's late and I just checked the site before I went to land of nod. Seemed I needed to urgently tell you not to **** up by thinking assault requires intention to cause ABH.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (554)
33.95%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (674)
41.3%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (330)
20.22%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (74)
4.53%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed