Q: Colin, aged 17, is talking to his fellow pupil at college, Duncan.

They are having an

argument about who is better at playing computer game and the arguments gets heated.
Colin shouts at Duncan and prods him in the chest with his finger. Unbeknown to Colin,
Duncan has recently been involved in a car accident in which he fractured a rib. As Colin
prodded him in the chest where the broken rib is, the rib penetrates Duncan’s ling and
Duncan collapses struggling to breathe. Colin panics and calls over to Bjorn, a teacher at
the College who is trained in first aid. Bjorn immediately starts mouth-to-mouth
resuscitation and begins chest compression on Duncan. These compressions compound
the injury to Duncan’s lung and, unable to breathe for over six minutes, he dies.
A few days later, Duncan’s mother, Astrid, was driving along a busy street when she
sneezed and momentarily lost control of her car. The car swerved and hit Bjorn who was
riding by on his bicycle. Astrid gets out of the car to assist the cyclist who is lying
unconscious on the road. She recognises the cyclist as Bjorn, who she believes is the
person responsible for her son’s death. Shocked and raging with fury she shouts, “That
serves you right. I hope you die.” She gets back in her car and drives off. Bjorn, suffering
from severe head injuries from the fall, dies 10 minutes later.
Answer:
Based on the doctrine of deterrence and primary aim to maintain orderly society, criminal
law recognized several offences, origins of which came from law and statue. As per, Bratty v
AG for Northern Ireland no act is punishable until and unless it is committed voluntarily,
coincidence of Actus Reus (AR) and Mens Rea (MR). Murder has recognised heinous of the
crime which must be accompanied by malice aforethought. This area has been influenced by
common law and Coroner and Justice Act 2009 (CJA); JV Robits maintains that sentencing
guideline require the courts to sentence with guideline and reasons for such sentence being
appropriate. However following CJA, sentencing guidelines had been changed significantly.
With reference to the legal proposition, facts indicate that the in first scenario killing of
Duncan by Colin and in second scenario of Duncan’s mother, Astrid, killing Bjorn. However
there is more than one cause which may indicate the analysis of causation. The issue of
direct or indirect intend needs to be discussed. Moreover, we’ll highlight loss of self-control
and availability of qualifying triggers which may need analysis by the application of common
law and Coroner and Justice Act 2009 (CJA). Lastly we’ll highlight the possibility of reduction
of sentence of murder to voluntary manslaughter in Colin’s case or alternative conviction of
constructive manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter in Astrid’s case.
Prosecution, in the case of Colin, will establish conviction of murder. Lord Coke define
murder as “Murder occurs, therefore, where a person unlawfully kills any reasonable
creature in rerum natura under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought.” First thing
that prosecution will need in order to prove conviction of Colin is to prove if he has
committed AR of murder. AR of murder consists of unlawfully killing of human being in the
Queens peace. Elements of murder are; unlawfully killing a human being by an act or
omission, victim is to be a human being and third aspect excludes the killing of alien
enemies in times of war. Duncan was unlawfully killed as Colin prodded finger on his in a
heat of an argument, and it wasn’t a war. This covers elements of AR. In authority of Airdale
NHS v Bland, Bland was on a life supporting machine. After 3 years, with the consent of
parents doctors applied for declaration that it might lawfully discontinue ventilator. The
declaration was granted. In R v Clegg, D was convicted of murder, his appeal was rejected
on the grounds that in firing the last shot after the danger had passed, and he had used
excessive force in circumstances. Since Duncan had an accident and because of that he had
broken ribs which Colin didn’t know. Likewise, in this legal proposition, Colin used excessive
power while prodding Duncan, this it proves the AR requirement of Colin for murder.
According to Eggshell Skull Rule, the weaknesses of victim cannot break the chain of
causation, i-e, the accident and broken ribs of Duncan, and the liability will still be on the
defendant. According to R v Blaue, defendant must take victim as they find them. This case
clears all the doubts regarding the fragility of Duncan.
Another issue that may arise is with the act of Bjorn, chain of causation maybe broken.
Chain od causation is basically a causal connection between an original case and its
subsequent effects. Here prosecution will run But for test in order to prove the conviction of
Colin as if Colin hadn’t prodded him in the chest, broken rib wouldn’t have penetrated his
lung, Bjorn wouldn’t called and he wouldn’t have died. In R v Smith, defendant was
convicted of murder and appealed contending that if the victim had received the correct
medical treatment he would not have died. The stab wound was an operating cause of
death and therefore conviction was upheld. In this legal proposition, Colin cannot put blame
on Bjorn for his act and death of Duncan. He’ll be held accountable for his action. In another
case, R v Cheshire, the conviction was maintained regardless of the way that the injuries
were not the employable reason for death. Interceding medical treatment must be viewed
as barring the duty of D on the off chance that it was so autonomous of the litigant’s
demonstration thus powerful in causing the death, that the jury see the respondents goes
about as inconsequential. Since the litigant had shot the casualty this couldn’t be viewed as
irrelevant. This authority again proves that prodding Duncan in chest, asking Bjorn for first
aid and him dying is a single, continuing event and this upholds the conviction of Colin.
Another thing that needs to uphold the conviction of Colin is to prove if he attains relevant
MR at the time of act of killing. MR of murder is the intention to kill or cause grievously
bodily harm (GBH) or malice aforethought. At the heat of the moment, Colin prodding him
the chest is considered to be an intention where he wants to cause him harm or GBH.
However, intention is of two types; direct and indirect or oblique intention. MR of murder
doesn’t only covers direct intention, but also extends to oblique intent where current test
established in R v Woolin applies. In this case, House of Lords held; Murder conviction was
substituted with manslaughter conviction. There was a material misdirection which
expanded the MR of murder and therefore the murder conviction was unsafe. The House of
Lords substantially agreed with the Nedrick guidelines with a minor modification. In case law
of R v Vickers it is proved that the intention to cause GBH is enough MR for murder. So,
Colin prodding Duncan which causes him GBH is a qualification of MR requirement (R v
Vickers), also there’s coincidence of AR and MR which may convict him for murder.
However, Colin can raise defence to reduce his criminal liability from murder to voluntary
manslaughter only if defence gets proved. General defences don’t apply to murder so she’ll
move towards two specific statutory defences allocated to murder; (i) Diminished
Responsibility, (ii) Loss of Self Control (LSC). These are partial defences that are not in
common law. In this legal proposition, D can’t raise the defence of diminished responsibility
as it is based on three factors; (i) abnormality of mental functioning, (ii) recognized medical
condition and (iii) impairment of irrationality. D doesn’t qualify any of the factors, so this
defence rules out. Other defence that defendant can raise is LSC. The defence of LSC was
previously known as provocation defence under the Homicide Act 1957. To raise this
defence, elements of LSC provided under S. 54-56 of CJA need to be fulfilled. Those
elements are; (i) There has to be LSC, (ii) followed by qualifying triggers and (iii) objective
man test. Qualifying trigger is contained under S. 55(3) and 55(4) of CJA; (i) Defendants fear
of serious violence from the victim or another person, (ii) things said or done which; (a)
constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and (b) causes the defendant to
have justifiable sense that victim was being seriously wrong. In this legal proposition, Clinton
and Duncan were in a course of argument which turns into heated argument and Clinton
prodded Duncan which results in Duncan’s death. According to S55 (3) and (4), Clinton can
claim that he had qualifying trigger for which he lost control over himself which he’ll have to
provide proof to squash his conviction. But according to legal proposition, both were in
course of argument and Duncan said nothing grave or triggering to Clinton and moreover he
had no threat from victim. So it’s highly unlikely for Clinton to get defence of LSC In case of R
v Thornton, The appeal was allowed and the murder conviction was quashed. In accordance
with Morhall, Ahluwalia and Humphreys, the jury should have been directed that they
could take into account her mental characteristics in assessing the standard of control
expected of the defendant. In R v Clinton, court of appeal ruled that whilst S. 54(4) of CJA
excludes sexual infidelity as a trigger for LSC, it should not be read as necessarily excluding
evidence of sexual infidelity. If jury is satisfied that there’s a qualifying trigger for M’s act, it
will have to consider whether a person of M’s age, with normal degree of tolerance and self-
restraint, and in M’s circumstances might have reacted as Colin did. According to R v
Ahluwalia, although provocation requires LSC, it didn’t necessarily follow that it should be
by way of immediate reaction. In another case, R v Duffy, defence would not apply if there’s
a time lapse between provocation and killing. It is for trial judge to decide whether there is
sufficient evidence to leave the defence to the jury: Dawes: Hatter: Bowyer.
The seconds that needs to be addressed it the criminal liability of Astrid. As she hit Bjorn
and yells at him and leave the area without assisting him, she might be charged with
constructive manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter. Since Astrid hit his bicycle and
he was lying unconscious on the road while she left, she did OAPA in the first place. The
constructive manslaughter neither requires foresight nor negligence as to the risk of death or serious
injury. It requires the commission of crime likely to cause harm with relevant MR for that crime. To
be guilty of constructive manslaughter, the cause of death must be the act in question, which must
be dangerous and unlawful and must constitute criminal offence. M’s crime is unlawful and the act
she performed was absolutely dangerous and in a result of that act, F died. R v Church proves act of
M as constructive manslaughter. In this case, constructive manslaughter was upheld. For the
purpose of constructive manslaughter, an unlawful act is dangerous if all sober and reasonable
people would recognize that the unlawful act subjected the victim to the risk of harm. Another case
that proves constructive manslaughter of M is R v Franklin in which it was held that for constructive
manslaughter, there must be an unlawful act (crime). The unlawful act must constitute a criminal
offence. Crime has taken place of OAPA which was grievously bodily harm (GBH) after which he died.
Other offence he might she might be convicted of is Gross Negligence manslaughter. Elements for
Gross Negligence are; (i) There must be a duty of care, (ii) There must be breach of duty of care
amounting to gross negligence and (iii) The breach must cause death to victim. In this legal
proposition, Astrid had a legal duty of care which she breached. She was not acting as per the
standards of reasonable driver and it was her car that hit Bjorn and caused him death. In addition, D
must do an unlawful act which Astrid did. In R v Evans, it was held that D had created a dangerous
situation and failed to take action to reduce the risk by calling for medical assistance which would
have saved V life. Likewise, Astrid instead of calling medical assistance, got away from the crime
scene which contributed towards Bjorn’s death. In another case, R v Adomako it was held the gross
negligence manslaughter doesn’t require foresight, and prosecution will have to prove that
defendants action had such high degree of negligence and caused death. Analysing these two cases,
it’s very likely that she might be convicted of Gross negligence manslaughter.

 Defence of Automatism; Sane automatism; act done by muscles witout any control
of mine due to external factors. R v Quick, Bretty V AG northern ireland
 Honey bees example, from guide
 Due to this subsequent statement, it’s difficult to invoke defence of automatism. She
wants him to die, isi liay yeh rule out ho jaye ga.
 Implied intent.
 10 mins, continued act single event.