Spanish35
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
Andrew is a soldier who is at home on leave visiting his mother. She complains about her neighbours teenage son, Brian, who frequently has parties that go on late in to the night. That night, there is another party. Andrew goes next door and finds Bradley to turn the music down, but Bradley laughs and says, 'get lost soldier-boy!' Irritated, Andrew goes and gets his gun and returns to the living room.There he fires two shoots: one he aims at Bradley which hits him in the chest, and another into the corner of the room to frighten the other party-goers. Mavis, who is sitting in the corner, is hit in the face by the second bullet and dies as a result. Andrew is unaware that he has hit Mavis, but thinking he has killed Bradley, takes him to a nearby quarry and dumps the body .Bradley dies an hour later due to blood loss as a result of the gunshot wound.
Could someone help me with establishing the actus reus and mens rea for Mavis death as im sure Bradley's death is a matter of direct intention. Thanks you very much I would really appreciate the kind help of you all. I'm quite struggling on my assignment.
0
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
(Original post by Spanish35)
Andrew is a soldier who is at home on leave visiting his mother. She complains about her neighbours teenage son, Brian, who frequently has parties that go on late in to the night. That night, there is another party. Andrew goes next door and finds Bradley to turn the music down, but Bradley laughs and says, 'get lost soldier-boy!' Irritated, Andrew goes and gets his gun and returns to the living room.There he fires two shoots: one he aims at Bradley which hits him in the chest, and another into the corner of the room to frighten the other party-goers. Mavis, who is sitting in the corner, is hit in the face by the second bullet and dies as a result. Andrew is unaware that he has hit Mavis, but thinking he has killed Bradley, takes him to a nearby quarry and dumps the body .Bradley dies an hour later due to blood loss as a result of the gunshot wound.
Could someone help me with establishing the actus reus and mens rea for Mavis death as im sure Bradley's death is a matter of direct intention. Thanks you very much I would really appreciate the kind help of you all. I'm quite struggling on my assignment.
With regardless to Mavis, you could/should look at the 'virtual certainty' test to try and establish oblique intention to kill or cause GBH. If you cannot establish that then there is no murder.
0
reply
Russ3684
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
Look at the doctrine of transferred malice
R v Latimer
R v Pembliton
AG ref no 3 of 1994
0
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
(Original post by Russ3684)
Look at the doctrine of transferred malice
R v Latimer
R v Pembliton
AG ref no 3 of 1994
To be honest I don't think that will help, as Andrew had not fired the second shot at anybody in particular so he didn't have a specific target in the first place.
0
reply
Russ3684
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
To be honest I don't think that will help, as Andrew had not fired the second shot at anybody in particular so he didn't have a specific target in the first place.
That’s true. I know Pembliton didn’t have a specific target- he threw stones into a crowd of people he was arguing with to disperse them all as I recall it. It was quashed however, but on the basis that you couldn’t transfer across to a property offence. I wasn’t sure whether that set of facts might help.
0
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
(Original post by Russ3684)
That’s true. I know Pembliton didn’t have a specific target- he threw stones into a crowd of people he was arguing with to disperse them all as I recall it. It was quashed however, but on the basis that you couldn’t transfer across to a property offence. I wasn’t sure whether that set of facts might help.
It could actually be interesting to use that case here - you could argue that Andrew aimed to hit the wall with the shot and instead hit a person, thus transferred malice equally does not work (because of the mens rea element being different with property offences and offences against the person).
Last edited by CatusStarbright; 4 months ago
0
reply
Russ3684
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
I think you’re spot on. You can tell I last read Latimer in 2008 🤣
0
reply
Spanish35
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#8
Thanks very much for all of your comments
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

How did your AQA A-level Physics Paper 1 exam go?

Great! Feeling positive (80)
30.3%
It went fairly well (123)
46.59%
It didn't go too well (40)
15.15%
TERRIBLE! (21)
7.95%

Watched Threads

View All