Introduction
Criminal offenses are an intricate element of society, with a proclivity of people debating on what qualifies innocence with law-based defenses. This paper describes a case with several criminal offenses, including assault, criminal damage, and murder. Polly’s actions in the pub constitute assault, as she verbally abused Roxanne and made threatening gestures toward her. Additionally, her act of severing the brake cables on Roxanne’s moped constitutes criminal damage, as she intentionally damaged someone else’s property without their knowledge. However, the most serious offense committed in this scenario is murder, as Polly intentionally killed Mohammed by striking him with a glass ashtray. Therefore, these offenses are considered criminal, and Polly had a high probability of being convicted in a court of law.
Assault
Chronologically, the first perceived offense would be a potential conviction for assault when Polly reprimanded Roxanne. Her reaction is considered a reaction to the assumption that Roxanne was flirting with Mohammed. Accordingly, when Polly uses vulgar language and gestures against Roxanne, the conceptualization of assault is complex. In lay, assault may be considered a physical act of violence instilling fear for one’s life. However, R v Ireland (1998) defined assault as instigating fear of violence that was quantified for a minute or two that warranted the criminal offense. In this case, the definition of assault is focused on the perception of harm, supporting the argument that Polly’s was a verbal and non-verbal gesture assault on Roxanne.
Accordingly, the actus reus in accentuating an assault as an offense precedents the induced fear of impending unlawful violence. In addendum, the case constituted words as possible forms of assault. R v Ireland (1998) court rulings held that even silence could constitute an assault as long as the victim perceives imminent danger. Moreover, Logdon v DPP (1976) gave added precedence where an offense was considered when the defendant intimidated the victim with an imitation gun as a prank. The woman was terrified, and despite the defendant reiterating that it was a prank, he was convicted of assault due to the fear he instilled in the victim through the perceived threat of violence.
Therefore, diverse instances warrant conviction of an offense with the provision of perceived fear. These case references justify the charges on Polly with an account of assault premised on her aggressive use of abusive language and showing Roxanne the middle finger, which is perceived to have scared her. The assumption is inferred from Polly being kicked out of the local bar. The defenses for assault include consent, property protection, self-defense, duress, and mistake, none of which apply to Polly.
Criminal Damage
The second offense was considered under criminal damage associated with Polly cutting the breaks to Roxanne’s moped. The legal basis for criminal damage offenses is provided for in the Criminal Damages Act 1971, defined as the reduction of the value of a property or the reduction in the usefulness of a property (Criminal Damages Act, 1971). The argument for criminal damage is considered in the actus reus and the men’s rea. Actus reus reflects the physical act or conduct that constitutes a crime, whereas the men’s rea focuses on an individual’s mental state or intent when committing a crime (Cross, 2023). The actus reus, in this case, is the damaging of property as defined above, and the men’s rea is the intention to destroy or be subjectively reckless around another individual’s property. The element formed is that the defendant must know that the property belongs to another person.
Consequently, the offense is enhanced by the distinction between the destruction of property and the damage of property. Destruction means reducing the property to nothingness, whereas damage means reducing value, but the property is still salvaged (Eskandari, 2019). In this case, Polly may be charged with criminal damage based on her severing the brake cables, which meet the conditions of actus reus, actively reducing the functionality of the moped. The brakes are an integral part of a moped and can result in serious accidents without the brakes. The men’s rea is factored in the notion that she knew the moped belonged to Roxanne, and she cut the brakes to get at her intentionally. Tentatively, she had no consent to commit the act of cutting the brakes.
Defense for Criminal Damage
In light of these charges, the criminal damage has three defenses that constitute lawful excuses. Firstly, when the defendant honestly believed there was consent, implying that if the defendant had reason to believe they had consent at the time of committing the action, it could be considered a lawful excuse (Criminal Damage Act, 1971). Secondly, defenses for criminal damage have considered the case of claiming arson, whereby damage is caused by fire.
Under such circumstances, the defendant has the leeway to argue that the destruction or damage was by fire, which then qualifies it as arson and not criminal damage manipulating the charges imposed. Lastly, criminal damage can be justified if the defendant acted to protect his property (Criminal Damage Act, 1971). R v Hunt (2017) offered precedence for the principle of protection of policy, providing that authority when considering the case if the defendant used the lawful excuse for criminal damage. Moreover, the consideration extends to whether Roxanne was acting to protect property belonging to another, forming an objective assessment. The situation means that the act has to be directly capable, in and of itself, of protecting property.
The basis of the information is from s.5(2) states that the act must be ‘to protect property.’ It does not mean the defendant must believe the act would protect property. His honest and subjective belief is only relevant later when considering whether the defendant believed that the property needed protection and that he was using reasonable means. (Criminal Damage Act, 1971). Therefore, the prevailing assumption was that Polly lacked a basis for an appeal to these defenses. She did not have consent, did not use fire, and was not protecting any property. Therefore, the line of conviction is considered to favor the prosecution as Polly has a higher propensity to be found guilty.
Murder
The actus Reus to be proven for murder is the death of an individual, conscripting any action involving taking another person’s life. If the person in question does not die, it is charged as attempted murder. The men’s rea is the intention to take someone’s life which is an important part, whereby the inability to prove intent by the prosecution repositions the charges to manslaughter. In R v Vickers 1957, the court stated that murder involves “the killing of any person in the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, either express or implied” (Hossain and Rahi, 2018, p.461). These form the basis for Roxanne being charged with murder
Defense for Murder
Loss of control as a defense
Roxanne is permitted in court to establish a defense in which she can plead loss of control. Concurrently, relying on loss of control required presenting the defendant to have been in an intense state of passion and perceived substantial provocation. The test for loss of control was established in R v Dawes (2013), providing that lost self-control is influenced by a quantifiable trigger and that any person of similar age and sex and reflects ordinary levels of tolerance and self-restraint would react similarly. Thus, Roxanne’s defense had to prove that a lady in her position would have the predisposition to lose control and cause similar
Provocation
There are also fundamental events and circumstantial facto that would constitute the ordeal as an external offense that regarded Polly’s actions as an induced reaction to the plan. Provocation is a defense that can reduce the murder charge to voluntary manslaughter. The defense is based on the idea that a person who ends another’s life in the heat of passion, instigated by aggravation, should be held less culpable than someone who kills with a premeditated intent to kill.
In R v. Duffy (1949), Duffy was charged with murder after he stabbed his wife to death following a quarrel. Duffy claimed that his wife had provoked him by insulting him, admitting to having an affair, and that he had acted in the heat of passion. The court held that provocation could be used as a defense to murder if it was a “sudden and temporary loss of self-control” in response to a provocative act by the victim and if a reasonable person would have acted similarly in the circumstances (R v Duffy, 1949). Therefore, the case is the potential background to justify the murder due to provoked circumstances.
The court also noted that the defendant’s response to the provocation must have been proportionate to the nature of the provocation and that there must not have been sufficient time for the defendant to cool down before the killing occurred. However, R v Clinton (2012) stipulated the basis of avoiding the use of sexual infidelity as a justification for murder under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The consolidated assumptions reflected that, even though it can be proven that Polly intended to kill Mohammed, the fact that he said provoking words could qualify as extra qualifying triggers to be used as a defense to reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter. This defense merely serves as a mitigating factor for murder, not necessarily a dismissal from liability.
Pleading Insanity
Pleading insanity is also a feasible defense to avoid criminal liability if the defendant can establish that, at the time of the offense, they were falling off mental illness or defects occluding them from comprehending the nature and consequences of their actions or from controlling their behavior. In R v Lloyd (2016), the judge held that mental responsibility was a connotation of the degree and lack of control must be more than trivial. Substantial impairment of mental responsibility is a mitigating factor for murder as well. If Polly could prove that at the time of the murder, she was having an acute schizophrenic attack, then she may be able to avoid criminal liability.
Conclusion
Polly’s case presented the intricacies of criminal law and the factors that can be considered in a conviction of the criminal offenses that could be committed and potential defenses that could be applied. Accordingly, Polly, presented as the defendant in the scenario, is in a controversial position with arguments and excuses that are limited in their legal basis. The claims were inclined to find her in the offense for murder, assault, and criminal damages. The case is presented to facilitate the potential of several claims of questionable acts. Three criminal offenses are at play, all with defenses to explore. The paper’s insights revealed the premise of court cases and their associations as a prerequisite for modern law referencing past cases.
Reference List
‘Criminal Damage Act’ 1971. Web.
Cross, N. (2023) ‘Criminal justice, actus reus and men’s rea’, Policy Press eBooks, pp.108–113. Web.
Eskandari, F. (2019) ‘Comparative study of property destruction crime case study: Iranian and British law’, The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 6(11), pp.5698–5701. Web.
Hossain, M.B. and Rahi, S.T. (2018) ‘Murder: A critical analysis of the common law definition’, Beijing Law Review 9, p.460. Web.
‘London v Director of public prosecutions’ (1976) High Court, Crim LR, 121. Swarb. Web.
‘R v Clinton’ (2012) Court of Appeal, EWCA Crim 2. Judiciary. UK. Web.
‘R V Dawes’ (2013) Court of Appeal, WLR 130. Judiciary.UK. Web.
‘R v Duffy’ (1949) Court of Appeal, 1 All ER 932. Vlex. Web.
‘R v Lloyd’ (2016) Supreme Court of Canada, QB 829. Lexum. Web.
‘R v Vickers’ (1957) Court of Criminal Appeal, 2 QB 664. pp.321–332. Web.
‘R. v. Hunt’ (2018) Supreme Court, 37314. Canliiconnects. Web.