General Principles Of Criminal Law - Essay Example

Introduction Thousand of years before Aristotle described man as a social animal. The view that man is a social animal was not challenged until thesixteenth century when hobbes propounded the thesis that man is essentially selfish, anything but social . No view of man in society would be correct and comprehensive without correlating both the social and the selfish aspects of human life. Social needs call for a restriction over selfishness of human beings, for the benefit of general public. The object of law is not only to impose restriction over human beings but to abolish the anti- social elements prevailing in the society . Both law and morals regulate human conduct in allied but essentially distinct ways. Law tells us what is right, while ethics is not so categorical and definite in its approach. The opinion was also supported by Maitland in connection to the British law(Pollock and Maitland, History of English law, vol.2). Miller defines crime “ to be the commission or the omission of an act which the law forbids or commands under pain of a punishment to be imposed by the state by a proceeding in its own name”( Miller, Criminal Law, p.15 ). The basis of criminal law is that there are certain standards of behaviour of moral principles which society requires to be observed (Devlin P. 1965, The Enforcement of morals, p.6-7). Law prescribes consequences for its breach. The function of criminal law as spotlighted by the Wolfenden Committee Report (1958), is to preserve public order and decency (Berg C. 1959, Fear,Punishment,Anxiety and The Wolfenden Report). We call such consequences liabilities. Liability is the bond of necessity that exist between the wrong doer and the remedy of the wrong. Having gone through the definition of crime and criminal liability, it would be profitable to have a precise idea of the essential conditions which give rise to criminal liability. The general conditions of criminal liability are indicated with sufficient accuracy in the maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, that is the act alone does not amount to guilt, it must be accompanied by a guilty mind. From this maxim follows another proposition: “actus me invito factus non est mens actus” which means “an act done by a person against his will is not his act at all”. Actus reus: “ Actus reus” is such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent. The act done or omitted must be an act forbidden or commanded by some law. Russel calls “actus reus” as the physical result of human conduct ( Russel, Crime,vol.1,p.20). Actus reus includes negative as well as positive elements. Actus reus by omission is well illustrated in an English case of Gibbins V. Proctor (1918,13 Cr Appeal Rep.134 ). Mens rea : It is defined as “ the mental element necessary to constitute criminal liability”. For the completion of any crime mens rea is essential and in making a person criminally liable an injury into his mental attitude is made. It is the very corner stone of criminal jurisprudence. Mens rea can be said an evil intention or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act. The basic principle of mens rea is that accused must have been aware of all those elements in his act which make it the crime with which he is charged (J. C Smith 1960, The guilty mind in the criminal law, 76 L.Q.R. 1.). According to Austin “the intention is the aim of the act, of which the motive is the spring”. In the case of R. V. Prince (1875, L.R 2 C.C.R. 154) and Queen V. Tolson (1889, 23 Q.B.D. 168), two landmark judgement was given on the subject. The conception of mens rea was introduced into the statutory offences. Actus reus and Mens rea of all the relevant offences : 1. Alan was a soldier and was home on the weekend. He possessed several guns and over a heated argument with his father, he loaded his gun to show off his shooting skills and in haste shot Brian. Both men were drunk at that time. Every conscious act which we do is preceded by a certain state of mind. No physical act is possible without bodily motions. And every bodily motion which constitute an act is preceded by a desire for those motions. According to Austin, “bodily movements obey wills. They move when we wish they should. The wish is volition and the consequent movements are acts”(Austin,Lectures On Jurisprudence, 4th ed.). . This means an act in order to be punishable at law must be willed act or a voluntary act and at the same time must have been done with a criminal intent. The intent and the act both must concur to constitute the crime (Flower V. Padget, 1798) 7 T.R. 509. English law started with a rule of strict liability (Pollock and Maitland, History of English law, vol.2, P. 477). Thus, Alan had the mens rea for shooting at his father and also for taking the second shot at the vase. 2. Brian who was Alan’s father was admitted to the hospital for the treatment of his injuries. After several days, he developed an infection in his wound. Even after the administration of drugs in heavy doses, one night weak and delirious, he jumped out of the window to his death. Suicide is an offence against the state, as in the case of R.V.Sweeney 8 Cr.App. R. ( S.) 419, it was said that even desperate people must be deterred from taking their life and that those who contemplate suicide must be punished. Hence, Brian had again the mens rea to commit suicide even though he was in delirium. 3. Doctor Chris attended to Brian in the hospital and Brian was not recovering from the drugs he had administered, Chris continued to give Brian the antibiotics in large doses, to which he was allergic. Chris had consented to attend to Brian and was liable for medical negligence. The mens rea in criminal negligence was defined by Lord Diplock: “ without having given any thought to the possibility of there being such risk or having recognised that there was some risk involved, had nevertheless gone on to take it”( R.V. Lawrence 1981). The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences. Legal Issues and liabilities : The few legal issues arising out of the case are as follows : 1. It has to be rightly decided in the case of Alan whether he was liable under diminished responsibility of voluntary manslaughter or he was liable under the unlawful act of manslaughter. Murder can be converted into voluntary manslaughter if it has the following elements : diminished responsibility, provocation and acting in pursuance of a suicide pact are prevalent. Section 2(1) Homocide Act 1957 , states that “ where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another , he shall not be convicted of murder if: he was suffering from such abnormality of mind, whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury, as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and in omissions in doing or being a party to the killings. But it also says that the effect of alcohol consumed by the defendant cannot be ignored entirely. Section 2(1) does not require the abnormality of mind to be the sole cause of the killing, even if he would not have killed but for the additional impact of the alcohol, the section still provides a defence – R v Dietschmann (2003) 1 All ER 897. Also, The effect of alcohol does not amount to an abnormality of mind due to inherent causes: R v Fenton (1975) 61 Cr App R 261. Even if a defendant cannot show diminished responsibility arising, for example, from brain damage as a result of alcohol, murder is a crime of specific intent. Therefore if the defendant was so drunk or drugged at the time of the killing as to be unable to form the intent to kill or cause GBH, he will be acquitted of murder. . However he is still liable to be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. By unlawful act manslaughter we mean, this is where the killing is the result of : the defendants unlawful act (not omission), where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to, the risk of some physical harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm – R v Williams & Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183, whether or not the defendant realised this. The points to note are : The defendants act must be unlawful , The act need not be directed against a person (e.g. arson) - see R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880 , It must be an act, not an omission. Thus, Alan should be made liable for the death of Brian under unlawful act manslaughter. Alan, after shooting his father did not stop but took another shot and shattered the vase. This clearly indicates that even after he had committed an unlawful act, he did not give up. Hence, he should be made liable for the destruction of the vase, under the clauses of mischief. When a person commits mischief he only causes loss to another person but does not gain anything himself. 2. In Brian’s case was it a matter of suicide or homicide? Brain was admitted to the hospital after he was shot by his son. The doctor, gave him antibiotics for the infection in his wounds, but he was allergic to them. His condition did not improve even after very large doses of the same drug and that night, delirious and close to death, Brian jumped out of the window when he saw the doctor approaching. Was it right on brian’s part to end his life or he was forced to reach such a condition? 3. Doctor Chris was liable for Brain’s death under breach of duty or gross medical negligence? Medical professionals are expected to exercise and provide reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and also exercise reasonable degree of care in treating patients. For establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of the doctor , the test is whether the doctor has been proved to be guilty of such failures as no doctor of ordinary skill could be guilty of it acting with reasonable care. Simple lack of care such as a will constitute civil liability is not enough; for purposes of criminal law a very high degree of negligence is required before the felony is established. Also, the question of abetment to suicide rises, was doctor Chris only liable for medical negligence or as we have raised the question earlier was a party to make Brain commit suicide? Though abetment to suicide is not prominently admissible here, Doctor Chris should be made liable for gross medical negligence, as he kept on administering the same antibiotics to which Brian was allergic, without any tests to confirm why initially it had not worked. Conclusion: As we know, the breach of law is punishable. In the above given scenario, both Alan and Doctor Chris should be punished for causing the relevant offences as both unlawful act manslaughter and medical negligence is a crime. “A crime would seem to be any undesirable act which the state finds it most convenient to correct by the institution of proceedings for the same infliction of a penalty, instead of leaving the remedy to the discretion of some injured person”. Punishment is for the transgression of rules; and it is inflicted by legally authorised persons. Plato regarded it as having instrumental value and in his opinion there is no substantive difference between punishment and compensation, “as a necessary cure, no more evil than the bitter medicine which a physician might administer” ( Hall, General principles of criminal law, 2nd edi. P. 311). Bibliography : 1. Hall, General Principles Of Criminal Law,2nd edi. P. 311. 2. Berg C. 1959, Fear, Punishment, Anxiety And The Wolfenden Report. 3. Bag, k.k (2001) Medical Negligence and Compensation. 2nd ed. 4. Miller,Criminal law. P.15. 5. Russel, Crime . 11th ed. P.98. 6. Devlin, P. (1965) The Enforcement Of Morals. P. 6-7. 7. Pollock and Maitland, History Of English Law, vol.2, p. 477. 8. Smith, J.C (1960) The Guilty Mind In The Criminal Law. 9. Salmond, Jurisprudence ( 10th ed.). 10. Austin (1879) Lectures On Jurisprudence, 4th ed. 11. Devlin, P (1958) ; Statutory Offences. 12. Williams, G., Criminal Law, 42. 13.The Crown Prosecution service : . 14. R.V. Lawrence, 1981. Table Of Cases : 1. Gibbins V. Proctor (1918,13 Cr Appeal Rep.134 ). 2. R. V. Prince (1875, L.R 2 C.C.R. 154) 3. Queen V. Tolson (1889, 23 Q.B.D. 168) 4. Flower V. Padget, 1798) 7 T.R. 509. 5. R.V.Sweeney 8 Cr.App. R. ( S.) 419. 6. R v Dietschmann (2003) 1 All ER 897. 7. R v Fenton (1975) 61 Cr App R 261. 8. R v Williams & Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183. 9. R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880 . NO. OF WORDS USED : 2002. Read More