IRAC problem style question

Essay Instructions:

Lynn and Kamal had been going out for a year. To mark their anniversary, they decided to go out for a meal to a local restaurant. The evening was going well until Kamal received a phone call from a woman that he works with, Clara. Lynn had been suspicious for some time about Clara and Kamal’s relationship, which she thought was too close for mere work colleagues. The couple began to argue, resulting in Lynn storming out of the restaurant. Kamal followed her out on to the street where they continued to argue. Lynn wanted to go home, but Kamal was determined to settle the argument and return to the restaurant. Lynn began to walk home but Kamal stood in her way, blocking her path. Frustrated and upset, Lynn pushed Kamal out of her way in an attempt to get past him. Kamal lost his footing and fell backwards. His head hit the pavement at a strange angle, and he lost consciousness. Lynn was devasted when she realised what had happened. She immediately pulled out her phone to call an ambulance, but her phone battery had died. Lynn looked around and saw Morag, an elderly woman, on the other side of the road, walking home from the local shop. Morag’s eyesight is poor, and she had not witnessed Kamal fall. Lynn rushed up to Morag screaming that she needed to borrow her phone to call an ambulance. Lynn was so upset that she was not speaking clearly. Morag was stunned and confused. She did not understand why Lynn was shouting at her or what she was saying. Afraid that Lynn was about to attack her, she hit Lynn several times across the head and face with her walking stick. Lynn fell to the ground, bleeding and dazed. The police and an ambulance were called by another passer-by who witnessed the incident between Kamal and Lynn, and Lynn and Morag. Kamal was rushed to hospital, where it was discovered that he was suffering from a bleed on the brain. Kamal’s condition worsened overnight, and he died the next day. Lynn was also rushed to hospital where she was diagnosed with a broken nose and fractured eye socket that required stitches. Advise Lynn on her likely criminal liability for the death of Kamal. Advise Morag on her likely criminal liability for the injury to Lynn. Structure your answer correctly as a full problem answer to a problem scenario and advise each person indicated separately, in turn. Identify potential offences arising from the specific events you are being asked to consider. For each criminal offence you think relevant to their actions, examine all of the elements that need to be proven. State the law in relation to these elements and apply it to the facts in the scenario, identifying which facts help to prove that each element has or has not been fulfilled. If there is a relevant offence that may be charged, consider if there are relevant defences that might apply. If so, identify their elements and apply them to the facts to consider if they are likely to be successful. Reach a conclusion as to the likely liability of each relevant person, based on your analysis of the relevant offence(s) and defence(s).

Essay Sample Content Preview:

Criminal liability: Case of Lynn and Morag By: Course: Professor: University: State: Date: Introduction Criminal liability is a legal concept that holds an individual responsible for omissions or actions whenever they commit a criminal offense. For an individual to be considered criminally liable, there should be evidence that shows that one acted either negligently or with intention which means there must be an actus reus and mens rea. For any criminal liability, these two fundamental elements(mens rea and actus reus) (mens rea and actus reus) must be established by a prosecution to establish a defendant's guilt in a crime (Sweet v Parsley, 1970). This paper explores Lynn and Morag’s criminal liability. Lynn’s Legal Criminal Liability after the Incident with Kamal Summary of Occurrence Lynn and Kamal are out on a date and it is during the date when Kamal receives a phone call from Clara a colleague. Lynn had been suspicious about the relationship between Kamal and Clara and this thought triggered an argument that forced Lynn to storm out of the restaurant. Determined to solve the issue Kamal followed Lynn. Lynn was mad and wanted to just get home, whereas Kamal wanted to resolve the issue and possibly get back to the restaurant. To prevent her from going home, Kamal stood in Lynn's way, but in an attempt to get past him, he pushed Kamal who then fell backward and lost consciousness. Kamal got internal bleeding and died the following day. Offenses Relevant to Lynn's Actions The occurrences, in this case, do not point to either first-degree murder or second-degree murder as there was no malice aforethought (Mutzabaugh, n.d). This means that the occurences point to manslaughter are there was no clear intent to harm or kill. Common law dives manslaughter into two – voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The Crown Prosecution Services (CPS), defines involuntary manslaughter as a reckless homicide and homicide that would be murder but has been committed under the influence of emotional disturbance or extreme mental disturbance for which there is a reasonable excuse or explanation (Crown Prosecution Service, 2024). Kamal’s death was a result of reckless and negligent conduct from Lynn and the prosecution will focus on proving that the act of pushing Kamal even though unplanned, caused him to fall and subsequently resulted in his death, therefore a case of involuntary manslaughter. Elements to Prove Everyone is subject to a “duty to care” a legal obligation that expects that everyone takes reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others (Samanta and Samanta, 2021). With Lynn subject to the same, she had a duty of care towards Kamal, which means she was supposed to be responsible for his safety. In the case, Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), the House of Lords argued that everyone is subject to the “neighbor principle.” As quoted: “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor….”(Lord Atkin, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]) Concerning this landmark case, Lynn was bound by the principle of “duty of care” to her neighbors, particularly Kamal. Failure to meet the standard of care required of her, led to a breach of this fundamental principle, as the act of pushing was done without consideration of the potential consequences. Lynn's actions triggered a head injury that was a substantial cause of Kamal’s death. The case R vs Smith (1959) establishes that if a defendant's actions majorly contributed to a victim's death, even when other factors are present, the defendant is still considered criminally liable. As such, Lynn's acts of pushing Kamal were done without reasonable regard for his safety, and her actions are deemed reckless and negligent. Application to the facts, in this case, are: (1) Kamal and Lynn had been in a relationship for a long time and this serves as a major indicator of the duty to care; (2) Lynn was emotionally disturned and in the process pushed Kamal causing a fall that led to his death, and (3) the bottom line of this case is that Ka...

Updated on July 8, 2024

Get the Whole Paper!

Not exactly what you need?

Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Order