Analysis case about death - Essay Example

Betty’s intention is for Polly to take the ecstasy tablets and hallucinate then hurt herself by falling over or something similar. Thus, there is specific intent of causing harm directly or indirectly. Beyond having the general intent to commit a crime, Betty had the intent to achieve a specific goal, which was to have Polly hurt herself. Actus reus is the physical component of a crime and is the result of voluntary body movements. This is what the accused physically does that harms another.

Under the circumstances, actus reus was discharged immediately Betty did successfully put the ecstasy tablets into a paracetemol bubble pack which Chloe unknowingly took. The crime had been enabled; the only thing awaiting was someone getting hurt. It is immaterial that the targeted Polly did not hurt herself by falling over or die. This principle is known as transferred malice; the same malice that was to hurt Polly was the one that killed Chloe. In R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359, where the facts are substantially similar, the accused struck a blow with his belt at Horace which recoiled off him and injured an innocent bystander.

The defendant was convicted of maliciously wounding the victim, which he appealed on the ground that it was not his intention to hurt her. The court held that the conviction would be affirmed. The defendant had committed the actus reus of the offence with the necessary mens rea; that is, he had acted maliciously. There was no requirement in the relevant act that his mens rea should relate to a named victim. Thus, Latimers malice was transferred from his intended to his unintended victim. Therefore, given the facts of this case, Betty cannot escape liability just because her intent was to have Polly hurt instead of Chloe who ended up dying.

However, since her intention was not to kill Chloe, the charges can be reduced from murder to manslaughter. Polly will not be criminally