CRIMINAL 2015-Zona A

Question 1

Adam and Eve are having an argument. Adam pulls out a gun and threatens to shoot Eve. Eve
tells Adam he is a coward and would not dare. Without deliberating Adam pulls the trigger. The
bullet misses Eve and hits the wall behind Eve causing the bullet to ricochet and hit Graham (who
is standing six feet away) on the head. Graham falls down unconscious. Adam runs over to help
Graham. He trips as he does so and falls on top of Graham, killing him.

Discuss. Answer: This question concern the offence of murder to prove it, we will need
to see that actus reus and mensrea established for this first we will need to establish the
actus reu of murder. The actus reus of murder of is unlawful killing a reasonable
creature in being in Queens peace this definition was given by lord coke, so the first
element of murder is unlawful killing that need to be proven as we can see from the
scenario that the killing was not justified and not legal so it was unlawful, the second
element that needs to be proven is that Graham was a human being which is the
requirement of reasonable creature and the requirement of in being is that the person
be not fetus. Now we need to prove the mensrea of murder the mensrea of murder is
intention to kill (express malice) or intention to cause GBH implied malice. this definition
was established by the courts after the 1957 homicide act and was approved by the
House of lords in the case of Vickers which was approved by the courts in the case of
(Smith and Cunningham). According to the evidence Adam had conciously pulled out
the gun and shot it towards eve, if he did not wanted to kill at least he wanted to cause
GBH which is enough for the requirement of Mensrea. Although adams intention to kill
or cause gbh was towards eve but the bullet had missed her and hit graham adam can
still be liable through the doctrine of transferred malice. we will not need to give the
woollin direction because courts have stated that it should be given only where
the evidence is not enough and the aim and the purpose of the accused is not
easy to infer. in the case of latimer, the court had stated that the doctrine can only be
used when the offence is the same here we can see that adam wanted to kill eve but
instead killed grahm so this principle of case will apply. now we will discuss about the
causation every result crime needs that the chain between the conduct and the result
because murder is the result crime we will need to prove it, adam can argue that
graham didn't because of bullet and died because him falling on top of graham trying t
save him but this argument of grahm can be rebutted because chain of causation
requires a independent voluntary act by third party this act of adam was not
independent because it was his bullet that had caused grahm injury and his trying to
save him not independent action, the authority for this proposition is established in the
case of (smith), although the act was substantial but it wouldnt break the chain of
causation. The conclusion, i have come to is that it seems adam will liable for the
murder of graham although his actions were directed towards nor he had intention
towards him this requirement was fullfiled by transferred malice and the chain of
causation was not broken because the act of adam was not independent although it
was substantial.