Problem Question: Criminal Law, No.1

Problem Question:

Amira, Bobbie, and Cassie share a flat. Bobbie suffers from severe depression and has, on several occasions, announced her intention of committing suicide. Amira sells a bag of what she believes to be heroin to Bobbie. The bag, in fact, contains a different, highly toxic substance. While Amira is out, Bobbie injects herself with the contents of the bag: shortly afterward, she suffers convulsions and lapses into a coma. When Cassie comes home and finds Bobbie unconscious, she assumes that Bobbie has attempted suicide. Cassie believes strongly that everyone has the right to take their own life; she decides not to call an ambulance in the hope of helping Bobbie succeed. Bobbie dies during the night. Medical evidence shows that, had she received prompt treatment, she would probably have survived. It also suggests that, had the substance in fact been heroin, the amount which she injected would certainly have been fatal.

Discuss the criminal liability of Amira and Cassie.

Amira's Criminal Liability

Murder of Bobbie

To determine Amira's criminal liability for Bobbie's death, it is necessary to analyse both the actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR) for murder.

Actus Reus (AR): Unlawful Killing Under the King’s Peace

• Factual Causation: The 'but for' test applies here—if Amira had not provided the drugs, Bobbie would not have died. Therefore, Amira's actions are factually linked to Bobbie's death.

• Legal Causation: According to the precedent set in Kennedy, since Bobbie injected herself, there might be a reduction in Amira’s liability from murder to manslaughter. However, this case is nuanced, similar to the Byram (2008) case, where the specifics of Bobbie’s state of mind and her history of depression play a role.

• Intervening Acts and Chain of Causation: The question of whether Bobbie’s autonomous decision to inject the substance breaks the chain of causation is crucial. The court might assess whether Amira was aware that the substance she provided was likely to cause death, even if it wasn't heroin. The role of Cassie’s omission also needs to be evaluated to determine if it broke the chain of causation.

Mens Rea (MR):

• Intention: To establish murder, there must be an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). While there is no clear evidence of direct intent, Amira was aware that Bobbie had previously expressed a desire to commit suicide, which could suggest that Amira knew the risks involved.

• Virtual Certainty Test: If it can be objectively judged that death was a virtual certainty as a result of Amira’s actions, then mens rea for murder might be established. However, it’s unclear if Amira knew the substance she provided was likely to kill Bobbie, especially given the uncertainty about whether death would result from this specific toxic substance.

Cassie's Criminal Liability

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Cassie's liability is best analysed under the concept of gross negligence manslaughter, which involves the breach of a duty of care leading to death.

• Duty of Care: The case of Evans suggests that a duty of care may arise in domestic situations. Whether the fact that Amira, Bobbie, and Cassie lived together establishes this duty is debatable, though the principle in Stone and Dobinson (1997) might apply, particularly if Cassie and Bobbie had a close relationship. However, the fact that they are not related could complicate this determination.

• Breach of Duty: Cassie’s failure to call an ambulance constitutes a breach of duty, as it directly contributed to Bobbie’s death. The breach is evident, as prompt medical intervention could have saved Bobbie’s life.

• Causation: Cassie’s omission (failing to call for help) is a direct cause of Bobbie’s death. The medical evidence clearly indicates that this breach significantly contributed to the fatal outcome.

• Grossness of the Breach: To establish gross negligence, the breach must be so serious that it amounts to a crime. Given that Cassie’s inaction resulted in Bobbie’s death, and considering her deliberate decision not to intervene, this breach is likely to be judged as gross negligence.