Criminal law problem question Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Criminal law problem question - Case Study Example . . so as the party wounded, or hurt, et cetera, die of the wound or hurt, et cetera, within a year and a day after the same." In order for Eve to have the actus reus required for murder or manslaughter in the events in question, she must have voluntarily and unlawfully committed an act or omission that caused, with no intervening act or event, the death of Brian, Fred and/or Ginger. Firstly, the act or omission of the accused must have been voluntary (Hill v Baxter). This means that the accused must be 'of sound memory'. For example, if the accused drives their car off the road and hits a pedestrian, killing them, during an epileptic fit, this would make the act involuntary, as the accused was not 'of sound memory'. An involuntary act is also one that is being forced upon the accused. For instance, if a loaded gun is being held to the head of the accused and the person wielding the gun threatens to shoot the accused if he or she does not perform the act, this act is involuntary. The voluntary act committed by the accused must also be unlawful. In the case of murder or manslaughter, justifiable homicide is one committed in self-defence or in the defence of another. Other justifiable homicides exist when the killing was committed in war or in the prevention of the commission of a crime (eg: a police officer shooting a bank robber). Therefore, the voluntary act must have been committed under none of the aforementioned justifiable situations. It needs to be done unlawfully. Most importantly, an act must have been committed. An act is a bodily movement, such as the exertion of energy or force that produces an effect. An act includes an omission in the case of manslaughter. However, an omission can only be considered as part of the actus reus if the accused owed a duty of care to the victim and breached that duty by failing to act. A duty of care may arise in the following cases - when the accused is the carer of a child or dependant; when the accused is the cause of the danger; when the accused has already assumed a responsibility of a duty of care; and, when the accused fails to get medical help. The voluntary, unlawful act must have caused the death of the victim. Causation is a necessary condition for any form of homicide. The element of causation can be deduced using the 'but for test' - 'But for' not having acted, the death would not have occurred (Smith v Hogan). However, the action or omission must not only have contributed to the death but must be a sufficiently substantial and operating cause and have not been interrupted by an intervening act by a third party or event (novus actus interveniens). A novus actus interveniens breaks the chain of causation. When the chain of causation is broken, the accused cannot be held accountable for the death of the victim. However, this novus actus interveniens must not be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial act or omission of the accused. Any act or event which is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial act or omission of the accused does not break the chain of causation. When the above mentioned elements of a crime are satisfied, this constitutes the actus reus for murder (except in the case of omission, when it can only be manslaughter). In the following cases, the victims Brian, Fred and Ginger, are all fatally injured in the course of events that implicate Eve for murder or manslaughter. Brian In order for Eve to have the