Legal Analysis of Liability

In relation to the abovementioned criminology dissertation help case problem herein, it is already given that there are four major characters who are involved in different acts of crimes which are again correlated to each other. If we critically assess the given case problem, there are three separate circumstances under which these crimes have been committed by three different personnel herein. Thus, in order to discuss the liability of Harry, Tom and Ceri and the doctors herein, we shall hereby carefully assess the relevant legal issues involved in the abovementioned case problem and follow it up by the applicable case statues, case laws and legal doctrine, if any.

Relevant Legal Issues

As it has already been given, Harry, in a state of intoxication, attempts to kill Tom with the help of a deadly weapon and hits Pam in the leg mistakenly. After he flees the scene, Tom grabs a knife and in a state of shock, threatens a passerby, Malik, while keeping his knife at his throat. Malik, being a patient of a heart condition, collapses from the stress of the scenario and afterwards, both Pam and Malik are taken to the hospital where due to negligent acts on the part of a junior doctor, Ceri, Pam dies and Malik dies in the course of his heart disease herein

Thus, the relevant legal issues and/or questions that shall decide the criminal liability of Tom, Harry and Ceri herein are as follows:

Can Harry be charged with “attempted murder” of Tom under the Criminal Attempts Act, 1981 and murder of Pam under the English Homicide law?

Is Tom responsible for the death of Malik and charged with involuntary manslaughter?

Shall Ceri be charged with Medical Negligence and Gross Negligence manslaughter? -

Does the act of the doctors turning off life support of Malik constitute Euthanasia or manslaughter?

Relevant Provisions of legislations and case laws

Given the abovementioned legal issues that would arise from the given case problem herein, we shall discuss the relevant legislations, case laws and legal doctrines herein.

Criminal Attempts Act, 1981

Criminal Attempts Act, 1981, s.1 (1) defines the term “attempted murder” as “more than mere preparatory”. Thus, according to the Act of 1981, a person shall be convicted of attempting of committing an act when his actions and preparations clearly states that if not for the obstacles, he would have been succeeded in committing the crime herein (Lawrence C. Becker, 1974). According to a journal published by Martin J. Wiener (Quarterly Journal, vol. 36, 2004), to hold a person accountable under the provision of attempted murder, the presence of mens rea i.e. expressed intention shall be established. Section 4(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act, 1981 states the punishment for attempted murder herein. Take a deeper dive into Jennie's Case and the Application of the Theft Act 1968 with our additional resources.

The doctrine of “Transferred Malice”

The legal doctrine of transferred malice simply translates to a situation when an accused intent to cause grievous hurt to one person but in the course of causing such grievous hurt unintentionally or involuntarily causes grievous hurt or hurt of any nature to the second person instead, the person shall still be held liable for the original crime under the doctrine of transferred malice or intent. According to the journal by Michael Bohlander (New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 13, 2010), the concept of transferred malice still struggles to find a permanent place in the English common law and the ambit of the transferred malice are often taken lightly by the judges of the English Courts herein.

In the case of R v Armel Gnango [2011] UKSC 59, it was held that transferred malice shall be regarded as an applicable doctrine in the English criminal law and the accused shall be liable to be prosecuted herein.

The doctrine of talem qualem or ‘thin-skull’

Mostly used in the cases of tort laws, the legal doctrine of thin-skull or talem qualem has a great influence on the English criminal law as well. The doctrine herein states that an accused shall be held liable if he commits a crime and the victim suffers from unexpected grave injury due to any medical or other issues of the victims, completely unknown the accused herein. According to the research journal published by P. J. Rowe (The Modern Law Review, vol. 40, 1977), even if in the case of tort, the rule of thin-skull is abruptly changing, the doctrine upholds a strong position in the field of English criminal law.

In the case of R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411, it was held that the doctrine of novus actus interveniens i.e. action of another person would break the chain of causation, shall not apply.

Involuntary manslaughter and Gross Negligence manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is the subject of English common law or homicide law (Sidney Preveze 1977), which states that when an accused causes death of another person through “recklessness or criminal negligence”, through men rea was absent; such act shall fall under the definition of involuntary manslaughter herein. However, the act committed shall be in the nature of unlawful or illegal herein (Webstroke 2021).

Gross Negligence Manslaughter falls under the category of involuntary manslaughter. From the general homicide law of English, gross negligence manslaughter does not need an unlawful act to be committed in order to prove the existence of involuntary manslaughter. According to the research journal published by Oliver Quick (Journal of Law and Society, vol.33, 2006), in the case of gross negligence manslaughter if a lawful act is executed in a way to render a criminal act or death, it shall come under the purview of involuntary manslaughter herein.

In the case of R v Adomako [1994] 3 WLR 288, it was held that to establish a case of gross negligence manslaughter the prosecutor shall establish the presence of duty of care, a breach of such duty and such breach of duty causing death herein.

Euthanasia

In the words of Philippa Foot the author of a research journal (Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 6, 1977) euthanasia can be defined as the painless killing of person who is in an irreversible coma. The act of euthanasia is currently illegal in the United Kingdom.

Implementation of the abovementioned legal provision

From the abovementioned discussion in pursuit of critically analyse the given case problem herein, it can be stated Tom, Harry and Ceri shall be held liable under committing a crime under the English law of homicide herein. Herein we shall critically evaluate each of the scenarios with respect to the abovementioned discussed legal provisions.

Considering the first scenario, intoxication shall not be considered as a valid ground of defense (Columbia Law Review 1955) as Harry already had the mens rea of killing Tom and he was armed with deadly weapon when he charged at Tom. Thus, Harry shall be held responsible for attempted murder of Tom under s.1 (1) of the Criminal Attempts Act, 1981. Also, Harry mistakenly hit Pam in the leg which shall come under the purview of “transferred malice” herein. Thus, as per the case of R v Armel Gnango, the death of Pam shall hold Harry responsible under the charge of murder.

In the second scenario, Tom grabbed Malik as he was passing by and held a knife at his throat. While the intention of Tom was to find Harry who just fled the scene and not assaulting Malik in any way, Malik collapsed due to a heart condition which was unknown to Tom. Thus, the rule of talem qualem, as it has been discussed in depth, shall apply in here and as per the case of R v Blaue, Tom shall be held responsible for involuntary manslaughter of Malik herein.

After Pam had been admitted to the hospital with a bullet injury in her leg, she was given inadequate care and treatment by one junior doctor, Ceri and as a result of such act, Pam died. Thus, the act of Ceri matches the description of gross negligence manslaughter with a sub-clause of medical negligence herein and Ceri herein shall be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

In the fourth scenario, Malik was given proper treatment and care after he was admitted to the hospital. However, to due his heart condition and the assault committed by Tom, he went into a coma and the doctors turned off the life support after 6 months. However, according to a journal by Richard J. Ackermann (2000), withdrawing life support is completely ethical and it does not amount to euthanasia or manslaughter. Thus, the doctors shall not be held responsible for Malik’s death herein.

Conclusion

Thus, in the given case problem, both Tom and Ceri shall be charged with involuntary manslaughter and Harry shall be charged with the murder of Pam, even though Ceri’s involvement in the case of Pam’s death herein. However, in the case of Malik, the doctors shall not be held liable as it has been seen from the above discussion that withdrawing life support is ethical in the UK medical law.

Take a deeper dive into Legal Analysis and Solutions for Shareholder Issues with our additional resources.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles

“Involuntary Manslaughter”; Webstroke < https://webstroke.co.uk/law/criminal-law/involuntary-manslaughter > accessed on 15th June, 2021

Journals

Bohlander, Michael; “Transferred Malice and Transferred Defenses: A Critique of the Traditional Doctrine and Arguments for a Change in Paradigm.”; New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, 2010, pp. 555–624.

Wiener, Martin J; “Murder & the Modern British Historian.” Albion; A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, vol. 36, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1–11.

Becker, Lawrence C; “Criminal Attempt and the Theory of the Law of Crimes.”; Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 3, no. 3, 1974, pp. 262–294

Rowe, P. J; “The Demise of the Thin Skull Rule?”; The Modern Law Review, vol. 40, no. 4, 1977, pp. 377–388.

Prevezer, Sidney; “The English Homicide Act: A New Attempt to Revise the Law of Murder”; Columbia Law Review, vol. 57 no. (5), 1957, p.624-652

Quick, Oliver. “Prosecuting 'Gross' Medical Negligence: Manslaughter, Discretion, and the Crown Prosecution Service.” Journal of Law and Society, vol. 33, no. 3, 2006, pp. 421–450

“Intoxication as a Criminal Defense.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 55, no. 8, 1955, pp. 1210–1221

Foot, Philippa. “Euthanasia.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 6, no. 2, 1977, pp. 85–112

Richard J. Ackermann; “Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment”; American Family Physicion, Vol. 62 no. (7), 2000, pp. 1555-1560