2) Stephen suffers from bi-polar disorder.

His wife, Jane, has taunted him about his

condition throughout their five-year marriage. One evening, during an argument, she
tells him that he is a “raving lunatic who needs to be locked up”. The next morning,
Stephen puts a week’s supply of his medication into the teapot and offers a cup to Jane.
He has no idea what the effect of mixing the tea with the medication will be, but he
hopes that it will kill her. The tea has no immediate effect on Jane. Disappointed,
Stephen leaves the room. A few minutes later, Stephen’s son, Tommy, comes down for
breakfast and helps himself to a cup of tea from the same teapot. A few hours later,
Tommy suffers an extremely bad reaction to the medication in the tea, and dies. Jane
suffers no ill effects other than a bad headache. Medical evidence shows that the dose
administered would normally be insufficient to kill.
Discuss any criminal liability arising. DO NOT discuss any offence which may have
been committed under sections 23 or 24 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
To incur liability for any offense the actus reus of the crime in question with its
specific mens rea is required to be proved. Not only this this must be supported with the
absence of a defense. For a person to be liable for murder there must have been an unlawful
killing of another human being in kings peace with intention to cause death or GBH.
To establish the men’s rea the person must have had an intention to kill or cause GBH.
intention means that one has as his objects death or grievous bodily harm and if such results
did not result the defendant would think his actions failed (Duff 1990). In R v Moloney 1985
the jury was directed to ask themselves whether the defendant had intended to cause the
victim death or GBH, if they think yes then they must charge D with murder but however if
no such intention was found but it was clear that the defendant intended some harm then they
should charge D with manslaughter. Stephen had intended to kill Jane but ended up killing
tommy so the doctrine of transferred malice would apply. This surrounds a situation where
the defendant had the specified actus reus requiring men’s rea but the subject matter is not
what he intended or foresaw it to be. Thus when Tommy became the person to die instead of
jane it will have no effect on his liability.
Moreover the chain of causation must be unbroken. To establish the chain of
causation the defendant must have been the factual and legal cause of the death. The person
will be the factual cause as per the case of R v White ‘..if the consequence would not have
happened but for that act /omission’. Cleary if Stephen had not put his weeks supply of
medication in the teapot it would have not ultimately been drunk by tommy. To be the legal
cause the persons act should have resulted the outcome and the act should have been a
criminal wrong. Along with this the defendants contribution to the death must be substantial
and operative at the time of the death. This was so as no other intervening act existed along
side the defendants. The thin skull rule principal states that you must take your victim as you
find him, thus the fact that the child reacted badly to the medicine while the mother did not as
well as the fact that the medical evidence proved that the dose was insufficient to kill did not
matter.
Now moving on to the most difficult part is that murder would not be the right charge
here as we can see that Stephen suffers from bipolar disorder and his wife Jane had
continuously taunted him about it in their five-year marriage. The last straw was when she
called him a ‘raving lunatic who needs to locked up’. Punishment of murder can be reduced
to voluntary manslaughter with the availability of three defenses, one of which is loss of self-
control. Section 54(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act provides that D will not be liable for
murder if his action were a result of loss of self-control which had a qualifying trigger and a
person with the same age and sex ‘with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in
the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way to D’. Moreover 54(2)
does not require the loss of self-control to be sudden. Thus him trying to kill her the next day
will not be disqualified from the patrial defense.
The requirement that there be a qualifying trigger was limited under section 55.
Section 55(4) will apply to Stephen’s case which requires D’s loss of self control to be
‘attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both)’. These things under 55(4a) must have
‘constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character’ and 55(4b) must have ‘caused D
to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged’. This qualifying trigger is judged
objectively as per the case of R v Hatter 2013. In R v Bowyer the comments made by V
against D’s girlfriend could have earned the defense had it not been for D’s burglar position.
In R v Clinton 2012 D’s wife had made extremely wounding comments about him calling
him weak minded so as to not be able to achieve his desire to commit suicide as well as
making comments about their children. The courts held that these were enough to make D
loose his self-control and thus was available to the defense. Thus considering the statements
made by Jane it is for the jury to decide whether they constituted circumstances of a grave
character and had caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
The degree of Tolerance and self-restraint under section 54(1)(c) places an objective
test. Moreover in R v Willcocks 2016 it was held that the jury should not take into account
the Defendants mental disorder even though it left the person less able in exercising self
control but circumstances to which any ordinary person was subject. Thus Stephens bi polar
disorder will not be taken into account.
According to section 54(5) requires the jury to acquit if sufficient evidence for the
defense to apply is produced unless the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Regarding jane since she did not die the charge would be attempted murder.

Q2) Marten and Sonya are nurses who work at a hospital. One day a baby dies under
suspicious circumstances in the neonatal unit and Marten accuses Sonya, who was on
duty in the unit at the time, of killing the baby. The accusation is untrue and Sonya is
outraged. She picks up a heavy bed pan and hurls it at Marten. In an attempt to avoid
being struck by the pan, Marten strikes his head on an open door, suffering a fractured
skull. Sonya shouts, “You deserved that!”, and storms out of the room. When Marten is
found an hour later, a doctor is summoned. The doctor fails to notice the fractured skull
and Marten is taken to recover in the ward. When Marten regains consciousness he is
heavily concussed. He gets out of bed to visit the lavatory. On the way there he stumbles
and falls down the staircase, due to the concussion. This results in Marten’s death.
Discuss the criminal liability of Sonya.
How, if at all, would your answer differ if Marten’s accusation was true?
To incur liability for any criminal offense all the actus reus elements as well as the
required mens rea must be present. Alongside this their must be an absence of a defense. For
a person to be liable for murder there must have been an unlawful killing of another human
being in kings peace with intention to cause death or GBH.
To establish the men’s rea the person must have had an intention to kill or cause GBH.
intention means that one has as his objects death or grievous bodily harm and if such results
did not result the defendant would think his actions failed (Duff 1990). In R v Moloney 1985
the jury was directed to ask themselves whether the defendant had intended to cause the
victim death or GBH, if they think yes then they must charge D with murder but however if
no such intention was found but it was clear that the defendant intended some harm then they
should charge D with manslaughter. Thus when she threw the heavy bed pan at Martin the
jury is likely to conclude from this that if not death GBH was intended by Sonya. The actus
reus and mens rea must coincide in point of time
 Moreover the chain of causation must be unbroken. To establish the chain of
causation the defendant must have been the factual and legal cause of the death. The person
will be the factual cause as per the case of R v White ‘..if the consequence would not have
happened but for that act /omission’. If Sonya had not thrown the bed pan at him he would
not have ultimately died by falling of the stairs. To be the legal cause the persons act should
have resulted the outcome and the act should have been a criminal wrong. Along with this the
defendants contribution to the death must be substantial and operative at the time of the
death. This was so, as no other intervening act existed along side the defendants as the doctor
does nothing and just leaves him in the recovery ward. Moreover the fact that the heavy bed
pan had not actually hit him as he had dodged it to avoid it will still not break the chain of
causation because it is not independent of the defendants acts.
However murder could not be the right charge here as we can see that Martin had
accused her of killing the baby even though she did not. Punishment of murder can be
reduced to voluntary manslaughter with the availability of three defenses, one of which is
loss of self-control. Section 54(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act provides that D will not be
liable for murder if his action were a result of loss of self-control which had a qualifying
trigger and a person with the same age and sex ‘with a normal degree of tolerance and self
restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way to D’.
Moreover 54(2) does not require the loss of self-control to be sudden.
The requirement that there be a qualifying trigger was limited under section 55.
Section 55(4) will apply to Stephen’s case which requires D’s loss of self control to be
‘attributable to a thing or things done or said (or both)’. These things under 55(4a) must have
‘constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character’ and 55(4b) must have ‘caused D
to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged’. This qualifying trigger is judged
objectively as per the case of R v Hatter 2013. In R v Bowyer the comments made by V
against D’s girlfriend could have earned the defense had it not been for D’s burglar position.
In R v Clinton 2012 D’s wife had made extremely wounding comments about him calling
him weak minded so as to not be able to achieve his desire to commit suicide as well as
making comments about their children. The courts held that these were enough to make D
loose his self-control and thus was available to the defense.
The degree of Tolerance and self-restraint under section 54(1)(c) places an objective
test. The jury if thinks that a person of the same age, sex, with a ‘normal degree of tolerance
and self -restraint and in the circumstance of the defendant’ would react in the same or similar
way will charge the offense of voluntary manslaughter in which the judge has discretion in
sentencing.
If however the statements made by Martin were true it would still not change the out
come as her throwing the heavy bed pan had resulted from the statements made by Martin
and if he had not made those statement, the transpiring result would not have occurred.

Q3) Jack and Asif have an argument. During the quarrel, Asif pushes Jack violently and
aims a punch at Jack. Jack stands his ground and punches Asif in the face. Asif falls
over, hits his head and loses consciousness. Jack is shocked and upset and tries to
resuscitate Asif. When this fails to work he concludes, wrongly, that Asif is dead. He
drags Asif’s body upstairs, hitting Asif’s head several times on the stairs in the process.
Jack places Asif on the bed and calls an ambulance. When the ambulance arrives Asif is
still alive. However, Piotr, an ambulance worker, stumbles when entering the bedroom,
and falls on top of Asif. This precipitates Asif’s death. Medical evidence shows that the
first blow was unlikely to have caused Asif’s death and that death was caused by the
combined effect of all the blows to the head Asif had suffered when Jack dragged him
upstairs and Piotr’s accidental fall.
Discuss.
To incur liability for any crime, the actus reus along-side the required mens rea must
be present. Moreover there must be an absence of a defense. For a person to be liable for
murder there must have been an unlawful killing of another human being in kings peace with
intention to cause death or GBH.
To establish the men’s rea the person must have had an intention to kill or cause
GBH. intention means that one has as his objects death or grievous bodily harm and if such
results did not result the defendant would think his actions failed (Duff 1990). In R v
Moloney 1985 the jury was directed to ask themselves whether the defendant had intended to
cause the victim death or GBH, if they think yes then they must charge D with murder but
however if no such intention was found but it was clear that the defendant intended some
harm then they should charge D with manslaughter. when Jack punched Asif in the face the
jury could conclude that he must have intended some harm.
The actus reus and men’s rea must coincide in point of time however the problem is
that when jack had hit him he had wrongfully concluded that Asif was dead and thus sought
to dispose off his body by dragging it on the stairs because of which Asif suffered continued
blows on the head. In the end when Piotr fell on him he died. Thus exception of the
coincidence requirement will apply as when the death occurred mens rea to kill was absent
although the actus reus was present. In Meli 1954 the defendants beat up V and having
wrongfully concluded his death rolled him over a cliff. V died as a result of exposure, and the
defendants argued that when they disposed the body they lacked the men’s rea. The privy
council held their argument rejected. In Church 1966 in the absence of a preconceived plan,
D had struck V and having thought she was dead threw her in to the river. V died as a result
of drowning and the courts held that since the beginning of D striking V, till him throwing her
into the river constituted the chain of causation unbroken. In Le Brun 1992, D struck his wife
who fell and sustained an injury on the head. She passed out and later died when D dragged
her from the road to the house. The courts of appeal held that the chain of causation did not
break and that ‘…in circumstances such as the present, which is the only concern of this
court, the act which causes death, and the necessary mental state to constitute manslaughter,
need not coincide in point of time’. Thus the coincidence requirement remain satisfied and
jack will still be liable for Asif’s death.
The chain of causation must remain unbroken. To establish the chain of causation the
defendant must have been the factual and legal cause of the death. The person will be the
factual cause as per the case of R v White ‘..if the consequence would not have happened but
for that act /omission’. If jack had not punched him it would have not led to Asif death as his
act was the first in the series of events that followed. To be the legal cause the persons act
should have resulted the outcome and the act should have been a criminal wrong. Along with
this the defendants contribution to the death must be substantial and operative at the time of
the death. This was so as medical evidence proved that although the first blow was unlikely to
cause death the continued blows from the stairs along with the fall of Piotr on Asif
precipitated his death. Thus the defendants act were still operative at the time of death and in
Smith 1955 it was held that ‘if at the time of death, the original wound is still an operative
and substantial cause, then the death (is) the result of the wound albeit that some other cause
is also operating….’ And that ‘…only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the
original wound merely part of the history can it be said that death does not flow from the
wound’. This is not case as both of the acts of the Piotr and Jack were in operation.
The preferred charge for Jack will be constructive manslaughter the base with the core
offense being ABH. To prove ABH under section 47 of the OAPA 1861 all its elements must
be proved. These require that there be common assault, actual bodily harm and a link between
the two. The common assault here would be battery which is the infliction of undesired
physical force on the person of the victim with intention or recklessness as to it. There is no
requirement that any physical injury be intended or foreseen, only the unlawful contact. The
CPS charging standards include loss of sensory functions to be included in ABH. Finally the
act of the defendant must have caused ABH. For this he must be the factual and legal cause of
the death which was proved above and it has to be shown that that what happened ‘could
reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what he was saying or doing’ (R v
Lewis 2010). For constructive manslaughter the act of the defendant must have been
unlawful. In R v Church 1965 a simple punch was held to have been dangerous so as to
constitute the conviction for manslaughter. The word dangerous was defined by Edmund
Davies LJ as ‘the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would
inevitably recognize must subject the other person to, at least’ the risk of some harm
resulting, therefrom, albeit not serious harm’. the unlawful dangerous act must cause death
this means that the chain of causation will remain unbroken unless some act intervenes so as
the make the defendants dangerous and unlawful act not the substantial cause of death
For constructive manslaughter if however there exists a defense to the core offense
constructive manslaughter will fail. Here it could be argued that Jack acted in self-defense.
For this defense to apply it should have been for the prevention of a crime (R v Demario
Williams 2020) and there should exist a justifying trigger for the defendant doing as he did
Jack punched him before Asif could have punched him. The degree of force used must be
proportionate thus it would be seen what a reasonable man in Jack’s position reacted. In
situation where the person ends up killing the other in self-defense will requires the courts to
look into whether or not the nature and severity of the actions of the defendant used to repel
the attack were not disproportionate. This will be a question for the jury to answer.
For Piotr his falling on asif was although operative was not sufficient in itself to kill
Asif. The thin skull rule will apply which means you must take you victim as you find him.