Scribd
Upload
35 views4 pages

Problem Question

IELTS Problem question

Uploaded by

chukwudivine2580
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views4 pages

Problem Question

IELTS Problem question

Uploaded by

chukwudivine2580
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Introduction

The problem question raises a number of issues within English criminal law: the offenses of
assault, murder, manslaughter, theft, and arson. Throughout the actions taken, a number of
questions of liability and possible defenses may be raised. The following answer will
consider each issue in turn, in applying the IRAC method Issue, Rule, Application,
Conclusion-to establish whether any or all of the parties has committed a crime. This will be
fortified by references not only to the appropriate statutes, namely the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861 and the Theft Act 1968, but also to the leading judicial precedents.

1. Stephen’s Threat to Mary


Issue
The issue is whether the abusive message sent by Stephen to Mary constitutes an assault or
harassment under criminal law.

Rule
Under English law, attack requires an act that causes
the victim to secure immediate illegal violence, as laid out within the Offenses Against
the Person Act 1861.¹ Moreover, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
criminalizes activities that cause alarm or trouble, including single or rehashed acts
of harassment.

Application
Stephen sent Mary a threatening letter stating that unless he was reinstated in his job, harm
would be inflicted upon her. Of course, this was a conditional threat, yet Mary felt
considerable distress and contacted the police. In R v Ireland, it was held that silence or an
implied threat would amount to an assault if they instill a fear of immediate violence.
²However, since Stephen's threat was qualified in nature-thus he did not imply an immediate
harm- therefore, it may not suffice to amount to assault. But, most certainly, his acts have to
meet the threshold laid down under harassment under the 1997 Act; this is because the victim
Mary felt genuinely distressed.

Conclusion
Stephen is improbable to be at risk for assault but may face a charge
of harassment beneath the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 due to causing
Mary trouble.

2. Stephen’s Attack on Derek


Issue
The issue is whether Stephena’s stabbing of Derek sums to murder or grievous bodily hurt
(GBH) beneath the Offenses Against the Person Act 1861..
Rule
The mens rea for murder is the intent to kill or cause serious harm, while the actus reus is
actual death.³ GBH under s.18 or s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires
an intent or recklessness in causing serious harm.⁴ A defense under the Coroners and Justice
Act 2009 of loss of control-reduces murder to manslaughter if the defendant acted under
provocation.⁵ Diminished responsibility, under the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, applies when the defendant suffers from a recognized
medical condition that impairs mental functioning.⁶
Application
Stephen violently responded to Derek's insult, which may well constitute provocation under
the loss of self-control defense. In the case of R v Duffy, "the court identified a possible
defense if a person acted out of sudden and temporary loss of self-control".⁷ Besides,
Stephen's history of depression and his problem with alcohol may invoke diminished
responsibility based on the case of R v Dietschmann, "where mental disorders of the mind,
which fell short of the complete defense but nonetheless influenced conduct, had the effect
of reducing murder to manslaughter".⁸

Conclusion
Stephen may face charges of murder or GBH. In any case, loss of control
and lessened responsibility may diminish his liability to murder.

3. Delay in Medical Treatment and Derek’s Death


Issue
The issue is whether the delay in Derek’s medical treatment breaks the chain of causation,
clearing Stephen of liability for Derek’s passing
Rule
Causation in criminal law requires that the defendant’s actions be
a significant and operating cause of death. The chain of causation can as it were be broken
by an exceptional act, as noted in in R v Smith and R v Cheshire.⁹¹⁰
Application
The delay in Derek's treatment probably will not break the chain of causation. In R v
Cheshire, it was said that medical treatment, even if of a poor standard, usually will not
break causation unless it is wholly independent of the defendant's act.¹¹ Here, Stephen's act
of stabbing Derek remains a significant cause of death.
Conclusion
The delay does not break the chain of causation, and Stephen is likely at risk for
Derek’s death, subject to potential defenses

4. Andrea’s Mistaken Shooting of Barry


Issue
The issue is whether Andrea is guilty of murder for erroneously shooting Barry, thinking he
was Stephen.
Rule
The convention of transferred malice applies when a defendant’s aim to hurt one person
transfers to an unintended casualty, as established in R v Latimer.¹²
Application
The transfer of Andrea's intent to shoot Stephen to Barry would complete the mens rea for
murder despite her mistaken identity. In R v Latimer, the court held that malice transfers if
the intent exists, irrespective of the identity of the actual victim.¹³
Conclusion
Andrea is likely responsible for Barry’s murder beneath the doctrine of transferred malice.

5. Theft of Barry’s Wallet by the Passer-by


Issue
The issue is whether the passer-by’s act of taking Barry’s wallet constitutes robbery
beneath the Burglary Act 1968..
Rule
Theft beneath the Theft Act 1968 includes insincerely appropriating property with the aim
to forever deny. In Ivey v Genting Casinos, untruthfulness is judged by community
standards.¹⁴
Application
The passer-by’s claim of safekeeping may lack dishonesty if genuine. In any case, delayed
possession without announcing suggests dishonesty, as characterized in Ivey.¹⁵

Conclusion
The passer-by might be held responsible for robbery, as his delayed possession without
intent to return suggests dishonesty.

6. Andrea’s Break-in and Arson Leading to the Death of Stephen’s Son


Issue
The issue is whether Andrea’s break-in, arson, and the ensuing death of Stephen’s child
constitute burglary, arson, and manslaughter.
Rule
Burglary beneath s.9 of the Robbery Act 1968 includes illegal entry with criminal aim.
Unlawful act manslaughter requires a perilous, unlawful act causing death, as established in
R v Goodfellow.¹⁶
Application
Andrea’s entry and petrol pouring sum to burglary and arson. Her unsafe actions led to the
child's death, satisfying the criteria for unlawful act manslaughter under Goodfellow.¹⁷
Conclusion
Andrea is liable for burglary, arson, and unlawful act manslaughter.

7. Andrea’s Encounter with Stephen and the Death of the Pregnant Woman
Issue
The issue is whether Andrea is responsible for the death of a pregnant
bystander amid her struggle with Stephen.
Rule
Transferred malice applies if aim to harm transfers to an unintended victim, even if death is
accidental, as held in R v Mitchell.¹⁸
Application
Andrea’s aim to harm Stephen transfers to the bystander, making her liable for the
bystander’s death. In any case, English law does not recognize unborn children as murder
victims, as ruled in AG’s Reference (No 3 of 1994).¹⁹
Conclusion
Andrea is likely liable for manslaughter of the bystander but not for the death of the unborn
child.

Footnotes
1. Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

2. R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 (HL).


3. Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 18, s 20.

4. ibid.

5. Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s 54.

6. Homicide Act 1957, as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s 2.

7. R v Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932 (CA).

8. R v Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10, [2003] 1 AC 1209.

9. R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 (CA).

10. R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 (CA).

11. ibid.

12. R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 (QB).

13. ibid.

14. Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67.

15. ibid.

16. R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23 (CA).

17. ibid.

18. R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741 (CA).

19. AG’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245 (HL).

You might also like