Criminal Law: Criminal Liability Of Steve, Manjari And Raashi

Download

Category Law
Subcategory Laws & Regulations
Topic Criminal Law

Words 1948
Pages 4

Criminal Law

In the following essay, I will be discussing the criminal liabilities of the people convicted in the scenario: (i) Steve being guilty of manslaughter for Jim’s death (ii) Steve being guilty for GBH for Manjari (iii) Manjari being guilty of manslaughter for Raashi’s death (iv) Raashi being guilty of assault and battery. Lord Coke’s definition of murder is now split into two modern definitions; the Actus Rea and the Mens Rea. The Actus Rea (AR) of murder is an unlawful death of a reasonable creature in being, under the queen’s peace. The Mens Rea (MR) of murder is malice afterthought means intention to kill or intention to cause GBH[footnoteRef:1] i.e. Vickers [1957][footnoteRef:2]. [1: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 99] [2: Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664]

Criminal Liability of Steve

To begin with, the most obvious crime committed in the scenario is Steve shooting ‘a gun wildly in the air’, causing Jim’s death. For Steve to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, to be specific, unlawful act manslaughter (UAM); the defendant must be prove to performed an act which was (i) unlawful, (ii) dangerous, and (iii) caused the death of the victim. Steve’s act was unlawful as in the case of R v Avis [1998][footnoteRef:3], one of the judges, Lord Bingham, outlined that ““the unlawful possession and use of firearms is generally recognised as a grave source of danger to society.”[footnoteRef:4] Also, there was an AR of murder i.e. unlawfully causing the death of Jim but there was no MR for the murder i.e. Steve had no intention to kill or cause GBH as he was shooting the gun in the air[footnoteRef:5]. Secondly, Steve’s act was dangerous as if Steve hadn’t been shooting his gun in the air; Jim wouldn’t have been hit by the bullet since he was ‘crouching fearfully on the floor’, threatened by the gun. This is supported by the case of R v Carey [2006][footnoteRef:6] which is about a victim who had ran and died of undiagnosed heart complaint due to a result and threats of violence. Involuntary manslaughter consists of three kinds: Unlawful Act Manslaughter, Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM), and Reckless Manslaughter[footnoteRef:7]. The reason why Steve is not guilty of GNM is that Steve did not owe Jim a duty of care and since there was not obligation; Steve could not breach that duty[footnoteRef:8]. Subjective reckless manslaughter is where the defendant killed the victim foreseeing a risk of death or personal injury. Since there was no evidence of whether Steve had the objective of hurting or killing someone as he was shooting the gun[footnoteRef:9]. [3: R v Avis [1998] 1 Cr App R 420] [4: (accessed 4th January 2020)] [5: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 98] [6: R v Carey [2006] EWCA Crim 17] [7: (accessed 4th Jan 2020)] [8: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 147] [9: (accessed 5th January 2020)]

Steve has also committed grievous bodily harm (GBH) under section 20 (s20) as in the scenario, Steve ‘punches Manjari in the stomach’. GBH under s20 (Offences Against the Person Act 1861) is defined as “whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously would inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years”[footnoteRef:10]. The AR of GBH under s20 states that “unlawfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm on another person”[footnoteRef:11] i.e. Steve did not harm Manjari in self-defence. The MR of GBH under s20 states that “the defendant must have the intention or be reckless as to the causing of some harm”[footnoteRef:12] i.e. Steve definitely was reckless when harming Manjari. In the case of R v Savage [1991][footnoteRef:13], the defendant tried to throw a pint of beer over a victim at a pub but the glass slipped and cut the victim’s wrist. The defendant and victim had bad feelings towards one another but the defendant was adamant that it was never the defendant’s intention to harm the victim. The judge stated that “an unlawful act was deliberate and aimed against the victim and resulted in a wound”[footnoteRef:14]. Based on this case, it is clear that Steve was reckless as he had automatically perceived bad feelings towards Manjari when she hit Raashi (Steve’s partner) with her bag, causing Raashi to collapse. [10: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 174] [11: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 174] [12: (accessed 7th January 2020)] [13: R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193] [14: (accessed 11th January 2020)]

Criminal Liability of Manjari

Furthermore, Manjari could be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter when it comes to the death of Raashi. The elements of unlawful act manslaughter demonstrate that: (i) the act was unlawful as the AR of murder was satisfied since Raashi died but the MR of murder was not fulfilled as Manjari had no intention to kill or cause GBH, (ii) the act was dangerous as Manjari’s bag had ‘some books’, (iii) Raashi died of a ‘broken neck’. The case R v Church [1965][footnoteRef:15], the specific meaning of dangerous was given by Edmund Davies LJ; “’the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm'[footnoteRef:16]. This suggests that a “sober and reasonable” person would see Manjari’s bag of book as dangerous enough to cause an injury but not dangerous enough to extremely harm someone. [15: R v Church [1965] 2 WLR 1220] [16: (accessed 13th January 2020)]

On the contrary, the Palmer v R [1971][footnoteRef:17] case advocates a test that is broken into two elements that indicate the significance of whether the defendant needed to use force, in this scenario, whether it was compulsory for Manjari to hit Raashi with her bag[footnoteRef:18]. The elements consist of (i) whether any reasonable person would truly believe that it was vital for Manjari to use force against Raashi, and (ii) whether Manjari used reasonable amount of force in the circumstances. Manjari was defending herself from Raashi as she felt threatened and fear when Raashi pointed a gun at the bank employee; this is also suggests that Manjari momentarily forgot about the books in bag when she attacked Raashi[footnoteRef:19]. The test in Palmer v R [1971] was later evolved into the test in Oatridge [1992][footnoteRef:20] in which the Court of Appeal approved of the previous self-defence mechanism as well as the addition of another element[footnoteRef:21]. The added component was to “filter out those cases where the defendant is acting for some reason other than in defence of himself or another”[footnoteRef:22]. Since Manjari did not know who Raashi was before the incident; this is one of the reason why Manjari is liable to use self-defence. [17: Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 ] [18: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 381] [19: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 381] [20: Oatridge [1992] 94 Cr App R 367] [21: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 381] [22: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 382]

Criminal Liability of Raashi

Raashi would have been convicted of battery against Manjari. Battery has no statutory definition but in the case R v Ireland [1997][footnoteRef:23]; Lord Steyn defined it as “’unlawful application of force by the defendant upon the victim'[footnoteRef:24]. The AR of battery is “the infliction of unlawful force on another person”[footnoteRef:25] i.e. Raashi ‘pushes in front of’ Manjari. In the case of Faulkner v Talbot [1981][footnoteRef:26], battery was specified as “need not be hostile, or rude, or aggressive, as some of the cases seem to indicate”[footnoteRef:27]. This indicates that it does not entirely matter whether Raashi pushed Manjari in anger, she can still be convicted. The MR of battery is “intention or recklessness in relation to the infliction of unlawful force on another person”[footnoteRef:28] i.e. since Raashi pushed Manjari from the queue to get to the bank employee; this shows that the push was intentional. [23: R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534] [24: (accessed 15th January 2020)] [25: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 168] [26: Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 3 All ER 468] [27: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 169] [28: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 171]

In relation to this, Raashi could also have been convicted of assault against the bank employee. Similarly to battery, assault has not statutory definition so it is defined through the case Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969][footnoteRef:29]: “any act which intentionally – or… recklessly – causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence”[footnoteRef:30]. The AR of assault is “causing another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence”. R v Wilson [1955][footnoteRef:31] highlights the idea that assault can be projected through words as in this case; “the defendant shouted ‘get out those knives’” which resulted in a physical fight. Due to this, “Lord Goddard stated that the words would by themselves amount to an assault”[footnoteRef:32]; therefore Raashi caused the bank cashier to believe that they were threatened to be shot as Raashi ‘holds a plastic bag out towards the bank employee’ shouting that ‘I have a gun here!’. The ‘cashier looks frightened and pushes an alarm button’ confirms that the assault took place as the victim suffered from the apprehension of force. The MR of assault is “intention or recklessness in relation to the ingredients of the AR of an assault”[footnoteRef:33] i.e. Raashi had the intention to assault since she came to rob a bank, pretending to have a gun. [29: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439] [30: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 164] [31: R v Wilson [1955] 1 WLR 49] [32: (accessed 19th January 2020)] [33: Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (5th Edition, Oxford 2018) 168]

To conclude, one of the robbers Steve could be charged of unlawful act manslaughter for the death of Jim as the facts show that Jim was shot by a ricochet of a bullet that came out of Steve’s gun. Not only that, Steve could also be charged of grievous bodily harm under section 20 for punching Manjari, as evidence shows, causing her to have three broken ribs and ruptured spleen. The death of the other robber Raashi was caused by Manjari who stopped Raashi from using her alleged gun at the cashier as well as stopping Raashi from committing theft. However, Manjari hitting her bag full of books at Raashi could be in self-defence as any reasonable person like Manjari would feel threatened by Raashi. If there was no defence, Manjari would have been charged of unlawful act manslaughter for the death of Raashi. If Raashi had been alive, she could have been charged of battery against Manjari as well as charged of assault against the bank employee. However, it is unsure whether Raashi would’ve actually committed any criminal offence as even though her partner had a gun, in the end it was found that the plastic bag she was holding contained a banana, not a gun. Raashi’s crimes are committed under Offences Against The Person’s Act 1861 under section 47.