Word Count: 2482
Criminal activities are very common in our society. With the intention to hamper the property of other people or causing ill effect to others, criminal activities are occurred usually. Sometimes people involve themselves with some activities to injure others due to personal clash or from ill temperament. Some activities which may be done to cause simple injury may bring the liability of a murderer or manslaughter. To understand the situation laws regarding criminal liability of murderer or manslaughter are required reviewing. This case study has been designed to discuss these issues. In the stated case it has been shown that the simple intention to injure other one caused death to a third party. Here, the accused tampered the brakes of another person’s so that person would have an accident and injure himself. But due to this tampering another person got accident and who eventually died. Considering the situation this study will discuss whether the person who committed this activity is liable for murder or manslaughter or any other criminal liabilities. Nadeem and Abid are next-door neighbors who are having their own car. One day they argued regarding card parking in the road that is outside of their houses. Due to this argument Abid got some ill intention to injure Nadeem. Abid decided to tamper the brakes of the car of Nadeem so that he would have an accident and thus got injured. But Mushtaq who is the son of Nadeem, borrowed Nadeem’s car with proper consent. As brakes are tampered Muhstaq got an accident while he was driving the car. Muhstaq was taken to hospital and given four times normal dose of painkillers. Due to this he was transferred to coma and provided support machine. Few days later Muhstaq died. In this situation it is necessary to evaluate the criminal liability of Abid. This study will evaluate whether Abid has liability as murderer or manslaughter or he has no liability. To understand the situation in the study laws and case related to liability of murder or manslaughter from intention to injury will be discussed here. Regarding laws related to Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) of Offences Against Person Act 1861 and lastly some parts of the Theft Act 1968 and 1978.
Liability for Murder
From the discussion it is known that due to argument Abid got some ill intention to injure Nadeem and decided to tamper the brakes of the car of Nadeem so that he would have an accident and thus got injured. But Mushtaq who is the son of Nadeem was insured to drive this car. Few days later Muhstaq died. To establish an offence of crime we are required to establish primary things which are Actus Reus and the mens rea. Actus Reus indicates committing wrong and this should be act, held by the Supreme Court of US in the case of Robinson v. California this act must be related to physical move not considering voluntary or involuntary movement. This is different considering the pattern of the crime, It s necessary to understand we should charge Abid, Mens rea indicates that when a person commits a crime then his minds also support the intention to commit that crime. So, considering these two if one charges Abid for damaging the breaks of the car then it is required to shown that the intention of Abid was same stated in Wai Yu-tsang v R, Steane. Two more limbs are related to men era and these are negligence and reckless. The alleged must be reckless and in nature and negligent enough to occur a crime. In the above stated case Abid was both negligent and reckless. We are also required to assess the two limbs of intention which are direct intention and oblique intention. Here Abid has direct intention to cause harm to Nadeem due to ill temperament. Moreover, in between the two limbs of intention that is direct intention and oblique intention, it may easily be said...