In Firstly, with the idea of causation, there

 

In the
case of Daniel and Victor, it’s arguable that the defendant, Daniel can be held
criminally liable for the death of Victor and charged on murder. However,
Daniel is able to apply for partial defences under Loss of Control or
Diminished Responsibility to change the crime from Murder to Voluntary
Manslaughter.

 

The
first ­issue is whether Daniel’s conduct caused the death of Victor. Firstly,
with the idea of causation, there are two elements in which need to be met to
satisfy the Actus Rea of Murder, these elements being factual and legal
causation. The first issue is whether in actual fact did Daniel’s conduct led
to the result of Victor’s death. The rule in ‘but for’ states without Daniel’s
conduct the result would not have come about. Applying this to the facts,
without Daniel’s act of hitting Victor repeatedly, Victor wouldn’t have fallen
unconscious and later died. Therefore, this means Daniel satisfies the causation
in fact. However, Causation in law, has 3 requirements which need to be met in
order to hold the defendant liable for murder. These requirements are; whether
the Daniel’s act was substantial enough to satisfy the AR element, the 2nd
requirement being the Daniel’s blameworthiness and the last being if Daniel’s
conduct was the main operating cause. The first issue is whether Daniel’s
conduct was a substantial cause of Victor’s death. The rule in Pagett 1983 76 Cr App R 279 (CA)
states that the D’s conduct does not have to be the sole or even main cause of
the result. Applying this to the fact, Daniel’s conduct was the only act which
lead to the Victor falling unconscious and dying. To conclude, this proves that
Daniel’s conduct was substantial enough to cause the end result. The next issue
is whether Daniel is blameworthy of Victor’s death. Arguably, as Daniel’s
conduct was the only event to occur just before Victors’ death, it can be
stated that Daniel’s conduct is blameworthy towards the result.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The
final issue in the actus rea requirement is whether Daniel’s conduct was the
operating cause of Victor’s death. The rule in Marjoram 2000 Crim LR 372 (CA)

 

To conclude, Daniel meets all the requirements in both
elements of Actus Rea for murder, as Daniel’s conduct was substantial enough to
cause the end result, which therefore creates his conduct being blameworthy as
he attacked Victor, which led to Victor falling unconscious and later dying,
thus also allowing his conduct to be the only operating cause as there was no
break in the chain of causation.

 

Another issue regarding Daniel’s criminal liability for
Victor death is whether Daniel had indirect intention to commit his action
which lead to the death of Victor. The first issue is whether Daniel’s action
were virtually certain to cause Victor’s death. The law states in Woolin (1998)
1
A.C. 82, 3 W.L.R. 382, 4 All E.R. 103, that a person (Daniel) is “liable
for murder with substantial risk” of potential harm. Applying this to the facts
Daniel repeatedly gave several blows to Victor’s head, which potentially
carries the substantial risk and even virtually certainty of death. In
conclusion, it can be stated that Daniel’s action satisfies the requirements
that the defendants actions can result in the virtually certainty consequence
of his acts. Another issue is whether Daniel was able to realise that his
action were virtually certain to cause Victor’s death. The law in Woolin (1998)
1
A.C. 82, 3 W.L.R. 382, 4 All E.R. 103, further states ‘intention could
be found where D foresaw a substantial risk or death or injury`’. Applying this
to the case, arguably Daniel could have seen the risk of hitting Victor several
times on his head, however Daniel’s mental impairment could arguable affects
his ability to perceive properly. The last issue is whether the Jury would find
intention in Daniel’s actions which led up to Victor’s death. Arguably, the
jury could find Daniel’s conduct intentional due to the Daniel’s desire in
avenging Cheryl’s death and Daniel seeking out Victor in his own home. However,
they could potentially be a divide on Daniel’s intention due to the decline in
Daniel’s mental stability.

 

Now, that it is evident that Daniel can be held criminally
liable for Victor’s death, the defendant can argue for a partial defence which
would change Daniel’s charge from Murder to Voluntary Manslaughter. Arguably,
Daniel could use the partial defence of either Loss of Control or Diminished
Responsibility. There are four key requirements the defendant must meet to be
able to use this defence in court. The first being, Abnormality of the mental
functioning. The first issue is whether or not there’s an impact on Daniel’s
mind and medical condition. The rule in Byrne (1960) 2 QB 396 states that the “state of mind so different
from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it
abnormal”. Applying this to the facts Daniel was later diagnosed with depression
and a particular form of psychotic disorder, this could have affected Daniel’s
ability to reason like a reasonable person, which therefore led to his
irrational conduct which led to Victor’s death. The second issue is whether
Daniel has a recognised medical condition.  The
rule in s2(2) Homicide Act 1957 that
the burden of establishing diminished responsibility lies on the defendant, on
the balance of probabilities, is not incompatible with the presumption of
innocence contained in Article 6(2). Applying this to the facts, Daniel has clear medical evidence
regarding his medical condition, which has been identified by a medical doctor,
therefore further supporting his case regarding his diminished responsibility
regarding his conduct in the death of Victor. Further, this enables Daniel to
meet the requirement for Recognised Medical Condition.

 

Another r

 

Alternatively, Daniel
could use the defence of loss of control to help alter the charge from Murder
to Voluntary Manslaughter. With the Loss of Control, they’re 3 requirements in
order to be made in order to be able to qualify for loss of control. The first
issue itself is whether Daniel qualifies` for a loss of control. The rule in
the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.54 states ‘D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to
the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control’. Applying this to the case
Daniel was enraged and had a sudden loss of control when he had attacked Victor
which led to V’s death. This
therefore highlights that D

 

Another
issue is whether there was a qualifying trigger for Daniel to lose control. The
law in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.55 states ”

 

 

 

In Conclusion,