Criminal law

Part A

Introduction

As a law student seeking an internship with the Berkeley Soloists, I will list the various standards used to
determine criminal liability. The law governing the facts, causes, and causation regarding assault,
battery, and other crimes against a person must be applied in light of the hypothetical example of Adam
and Eve. Starting with the first element of the elements of criminal law, the facts of the crime are
discussed.

Actus reus Actus reus may be a lawful term utilized in criminal law to depict the "blameworthy act"
component of a wrongdoing. It alludes to the physical act or exclusion that constitutes a criminal
offense. For a wrongdoing to have been committed.

Example Suppose that robbery could be a wrongdoing within the purview in which Adam and Eve live. In
this case, the actus reus of robbery would be taking somebody else's property without their
authorization. In the event that Adam were to take something from Eve, such as her satchel, the actus
reus of robbery would be display.

Mens rea

Mens rea could be a Latin term which means "blameworthy intellect" and alludes to the mental
component or aim required to commit a wrongdoing. It is the subjective or inside perspective of a
wrongdoing, as restricted to the actus reus, which is the objective or external angle.

Example

Assume that burglary may be a wrongdoing within the purview in which Adam and Eve live. In this case,
the mens rea of burglary would be the expectation to forever deny somebody else of their property. In
the event that Adam were to require Eve's handbag, but as it were did so to borrow it for a brief period
of time and with the purposeful of returning it, there would be no mens rea of burglary.

In any case, in the event that Adam took Eve's satchel with the purposeful of forever keeping it for
himself, he would have the specified mens rea for the wrongdoing of burglary. In this situation, the actus
reus of robbery (taking somebody else's property) and the mens rea of burglary would both be display,
and Adam may be held blameworthy of burglary.

Causation

It is basic, whereas assessing conceivable obligation, that recognize whether defendant's acts (or
inaction) were the genuine cause of the damage. All through all occasions of criminal movement having
a unsurprising result, prove of causation is fundamental. Criminal obligation includes two sorts of
causation:

genuine and lawful. The 'but for' test is the beginning point for building up whether or not there's
genuine causation in work. Within the lion's share of circumstances, on the off chance that there are no
complicating components, causation may be appeared fair by truthful causality. In certain
circumstances, legitimate causation may too be critical. To appear legitimate causation, it is adequate
that the result was delivered by the defendant's wrongdoing; the respondent must treat his victim how
he found them, in

any case it isn't vital that his activities were the vital cause. In addition, no require for Novas actus
mediations (lean cranium run the show)

Chain of causation

A causal chain, also known as a "causal chain" or "causation chain," refers to the sequence of events
that connects a defendant's actions to the harm suffered by a victim. In a criminal context, causation is
an important factor in determining whether a defendant's actions caused harm and that the defendant
should be held liable for the resulting crime. Example If Adam causes a car accident while driving drunk,
which results in injuries to Eve, then causation is clear.However, if Eve is subsequently hit by a passing
ambulance, which aggravates her injuries, then the causal chain has been broken by the incoming
ambulance, and Adam, who caused the initial accident, may not be held liable for the full extent of the
accident and the victim's injuries.

Common assault

Assault and battery are examples of "simple assault." The difference is easy to see: the use of force
without consent is assault, but merely threatening it is not. Threatening someone with physical violence
is assault, but actually doing it is assault. A's threat to attack B and subsequent physical contact are two
separate crimes. Each offence is separate. Leicester Magistrates' Court, Case of R (Kracher) ([2013]
EWHC 4627). Assault and assault are both different offences and have the elements of armed assault
and robbery.Prior to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, these offences were considered
common law offences. The concepts governing criminal behaviour must be established by case law. This
includes both tort law and criminal law (trespass). The standard sentence for cases tried without trial is
six months' imprisonment.Avoid technical terms. Assault and assault are the most common forms of
physical violence. Thus, "assault" may refer to either actual physical contact or the threat of such
contact. Describe some common types of assault.Assault refers to emotional or psychological
aggression whereas assault refers to physical violence.

Assault and battery

Assault and battery are two separate, but related, crimes that involve the use of physical force against
another person. assault is an intentional act that causes another person to fear imminent danger This
may include threats of physical violence, gestures or actions that indicate an intent to harm, or
brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner. In some jurisdictions, simply attempting to touch
someone in a way that will hurt them may be considered assault, even if there is no actual physical
contact. assault, on the other hand, is the intentional use of physical force against another person that
results in injury or offensive contact. This may include hitting, pushing, slapping, shoving, or any other
type of physical contact that causes injury or insult.Although assault and battery are often used
interchangeably, it is worth noting that they are different crimes that require different elements. For
example, a person can be charged with assault even if there was no physical contact, whereas assault
requires actual physical contact. Additionally, victims of bodily harm or battery can also seek damages
under civil law.Here are some examples of situations that could be considered assault: Example 1: Adam
trips Eve, a police officer, and puts his foot out to stop her from being arrested. She falls and cuts her
foot. The first example is about injury. It shows how a wound can be caused by a blow, thrust, or other
physical force without the use of a weapon such as a pistol or knife. Example 2: Adam hides a razor
blade in Eve's candy bar with the intention of making her eat it and causing serious injury.

Eva suffered a wound in her mouth but spat the bar out. In this case, Eva's actions were not the direct
cause of her harm; it was not Adam's actions that harmed her, but rather her own eating of the candy
bar. However, it could also be argued that Adam was directly responsible for any injuries Eve sustained.
Example 3: Adam mixes Eve's face cream with coarsely crushed glass. If the resulting abrasion becomes
infected, she will suffer serious injury.By definition, the word "inflict" can also refer to the act of causing
(R v Ireland; R v Burstow). In such a case, Adam may be liable under sections 18 or 20 of the OAPA 1861
(depending on the cause of the breakdown).

Example 4: Adam hits policewoman Eve on the head to avoid arrest. She falls and damages her cartilage
which has to be surgically repaired. The operation fails, sepsis sets in and Eve's leg has to be amputated.
Unless the operation is so extraordinary as to break the chain of causation, Adam is the actual and legal
cause of Eve's injury. Eve suffers serious injuries.According to section 18 of the OAPA 1861, "cause"
(GBH) includes all circumstances in which serious harm is not the direct result of the use of force. Thus,
even if personal injury is indirectly caused, the defendant may still be held liable.

Offences against the persons

Crimes against persons refer to a category of crimes that involve violence or harm against a person.
These crimes are considered some of the most serious crimes and can result in serious consequences
such as imprisonment and fines. Examples of crimes against persons are: kidnapping, rape, bodily harm,
murder, deprivation of liberty, etc. These crimes vary in their severity.

Part2A

Criminal Homicide

Criminal liabilities

M1

Homicide
When one person kills another, it is called murder. It is a type of violent crime that is rated on a scale of
"low" to "very high" depending on the circumstances of the murder. First-degree murder refers to an
intentional and planned killing, while second-degree murder refers to an intentional killing that was not
planned beforehand. Murder is a killing that occurs without malice or premeditation, often in the
moment. Murder can also be classified as justified, such as self-defense, and unjustified, such as
manslaughter. Murder cases are investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement and the criminal
justice system.

Murder(Actus Reus and men's rea):

Murder is a specific form of killing that is usually defined as the intentional killing of another person.
Legally speaking, both the elements of the crime and the elements of the offense must be present. The
crime refers to the physical act of killing another person.In the case of murder, this means that the
defendant must have caused the death of another person by an act or omission. This can include acts
such as shooting, stabbing, or strangling someone, or omissions such as failing to provide necessary
medical care to someone in need. mens rea, on the other hand, refers to the mental state of the
defendant at the time of the killing. Murder requires that the defendant had the intent to kill or
seriously harm the victim and that there was some degree of premeditation.

Intention means that the defendant had a specific intent to kill or seriously harm the victim, or acted
with extreme recklessness or disregard for human life. murder has several degrees, usually defined by
the degree of premeditation or planning involved in the killing.For example, first degree murder is
usually limited to premeditated or planned killing, while second degree murder may include
unpremeditated killing that occurred in the moment. To be convicted of murder, the prosecutor must
prove both the elements of the crime, "actus reus" and "mens rea," beyond a reasonable doubt. If either
of these elements does not exist, the defendant may be charged with a lesser offense, such as
manslaughter.

Voluntary Manslaughter
Murder is a type of homicide that occurs when a person kills another person without premeditation and
with some degree of intent or malice. It is considered a lesser crime than murder, but it is still a serious
crime.For murder to be considered manslaughter, there must be extenuating circumstances that caused
the defendant to act in an emotionally agitated state or extreme mental confusion. This may include
provocation, fear, sudden anger, etc.For example, if a person finds his/her spouse with another person
and intentionally kills them, he/she may be charged with manslaughter instead of murder. In this case,
the provocation of infidelity may be considered an extenuating circumstance that led to the murder.
The primary difference between manslaughter and murder is the degree of intent and planning. In
manslaughter, the killing was not premeditated, but there was still some degree of willfulness or malice.
In murder, the killing was premeditated and planned. Penalties for manslaughter vary by jurisdiction
and the circumstances of the crime, but are usually less than those for murder. In some cases,
manslaughter may be punishable by prison time, while in other cases, the defendant may receive
probation or other alternative sentencing options.

Loss of self control

Loss of control is a defense that may be used in manslaughter cases, typically when a defendant is
charged with murder but argues that his actions were the result of a sudden and momentary loss of
control.To use the loss of control defense, a defendant must prove that his actions were caused by an
act or situation that would have caused a rational person to lose control of their emotions. This may
include infidelity, physical violence, or other highly provocative behavior.

Diminished responsibility

Diminished responsibility is a defense used in manslaughter cases, typically when a defendant is

charged with murder but claims that his or her actions were the result of a mental disorder or
abnormality that impaired his or her ability to control his or her behavior. To invoke the defense of
diminished responsibility, a defendant must prove that he or she suffered from a recognized mental
disorder or abnormality at the time of the killing, and that this disorder or abnormality affected his or
her ability to control his or her actions or understand the nature of the mental disorder or abnormality
that significantly impaired the conduct of the act.
Suicide pact

A suicide pact is an agreement between two or more people to commit suicide at the same time and in
the same place. Suicide pacts can be made for many reasons, including escaping a difficult or painful
situation, avoiding a lonely death, or as a sign of love or loyalty.

Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is a form of homicide that occurs when a person unintentionally causes the
death of another person while performing a non-criminal act or committing a criminally negligent act.
Negligent homicide can occur in a variety of situations, such as when a driver causes a fatal accident
through reckless driving or accidentally inflicts fatal injuries during an argument.

Reckless manslaughter
Negligent homicide is a form of murder that occurs when one person causes the death of another
person through recklessness or gross negligence. It is a crime that is usually prosecuted as a capital
offense.

Constructive manslaughter
In constructive homicide, the perpetrator's actions are not intended to cause harm, but there is a risk of
harm that a reasonable person should be aware of. For example, a driver who is texting on a cell phone
and causes an accident resulting in a death could be charged with constructive homicide.

Similarly, a construction worker who fails to follow safety procedures and causes a fatal accident could
also be charged with this offense.

Liability of Alastair
A's killing of H with intent to kill or to inflict gruesome bodily harm is the most heinous crime he has
committed. However, the murder of a man with intent to kill or to inflict gruesome bodily harm was
also a serious crime. A did not intend to simply hit H. They got into an argument, but it is impossible to
determine whether they had the intention to kill each other. Therefore, A can be charged with culpable
homicide (constructive negligence). If this verdict is upheld, Mr A will be completely devastated and
could face life in prison.

Requirements

This distinction is determined by the Larkin case where the defendant Alister intentionally committed an
unlawful act that was objectively harmful and caused the victim's death. As stated in Laurens v Laurens,
all these elements must be proven in court for Alister to be found guilty. In the case of MPC or Dpp v.
Newbury and Jones, the elements of constructive manslaughter were made clear. The criminal act
includes: For an act to commit a criminal offence, it must be dangerous and likely to result in death. In
this question you need to determine the nature of the offence. A's offence to be established is assault.
The act must be positive, not commission in the first instance. This is an offence under section 39
(Criminal Justice Act 1988).This is the result of A punching H. X's use of unlawful physical force against Y
is considered to be assault within the meaning of AG 1986. A promptly punched H and threw him to
the ground.The personal injury of the man who supposedly punched H was evident. There is evidence of
direct intent in Chandler v Johnson. The illegality of this provision is of concern because it was stated
that there was a difference of opinion.Alistair can show that he consented to this activity. However, if
the parties consent to engaging in street fighting, the defense of consent is not accepted because it is
not in the public interest for the parties to harm each other. According to the case, R v. Mr Lamb,
according to the idea that hitting another person is a crime in itself, the act of hitting another person is
unlawful. The next aspect of constructive manslaughter is to determine whether a threat exists. In DPP
v Newbury Jones, the House of Lords confirmed the judgment of Justice Edmund Davies in R v Newbury
Jones. The Church established the test of dangerousness.

The objective test is whether a calm and rational person could recognise the possibility of harm
resulting from the alleged crime. Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that hitting someone is
extremely dangerous.One could argue that Alistair did not foresee the harm that would result from his
actions. He simply hit. The exact nature of the damage cannot be foreseen. Consistent with the decision
in R v Jm and Sn, the Court of Appeal held that it was not necessary for a reasonable person to foresee
the possibility of this particular injury occurring and broadened the definition of risk.As long as the risk
exists, it remains.

It is therefore not necessary for A to foresee that H will cut his elbow and the subsequent events that
follow. The blow is therefore classified as dangerous. The second important factor to assess is that the
act must have caused the death. The chain of causation must be proved unbroken. For Alistair to be held
liable, both factual and legal causation must be proven by the Supreme Court. To prove legal causation,
the case of R v. Paget states that the defendant's act need not have been the sole cause of the victim's
death, but it must have contributed to the victim's death.

Given the facts, other events also occurred.Therefore, it is necessary to determine what function the
other events played.Two events have occurred.Hashim intentionally bumps into Isabel when he tries to
get up.

Since Hashim stood up after being punched by A, this is a case of R v Robbery, which provides that the
chain of causation is not broken if the victim's reaction is reasonably foreseeable or a natural
consequence of the action. It was obvious that Hashim would try to get up after being punched and
falling down.

Thus, despite the fact that H collided with I, this was still a foreseeable consequence of A's collision. As
in R v. McKee, the chain of causation was not broken. A might argue that the causal chain should be
broken because I's appearance was unexpected. As in R.y. Carey et al.

find it difficult to cause physical harm to H by simply standing up. Yet the incident took place on a road.
It is reasonable to assume that there is a person nearby or close by. The second occurrence is the
transmission of a life-threatening virus via a blood transfusion. According to Michael Jordan, this is
problematic in medical settings where treatment seems "clearly wrong." However, according to R. y, it is
important to note that: Watson's transfusion was entirely voluntary, unintentional, and informed.