Problem Question: Criminal Law, No.11

Problem Question: Criminal Law, No.11
Photo by Bianca Ackermann / Unsplash

Problem Question

Creepy has dated several women, asking them to take a drug that renders them unconscious for a short period while he has sex with them. Although the women have woken up without any ill effects before, his latest girlfriend, Princess, falls into a coma and eventually dies after Creepy drugs her. Princess’s mother, Queeny, turns off Princess’s life-support machine a year later, leading to Princess's death. Creepy’s brother, Crawley, who is aware of Morticia’s past trauma, is stabbed to death by Morticia after she mis-hears his reassurance as a threat. Discuss the criminal liability of Creepy, Queeny, and Morticia.

Analysis

Creepy’s Criminal Liability

1. Murder

• Actus Reus and Mens Rea:

◦ Actus Reus: Creepy’s act of drugging Princess, leading to her falling into a coma and eventually her death, constitutes the actus reus of murder if it can be shown that his actions directly caused her death.

◦ Mens Rea: For murder, Creepy would need to have intended to kill Princess or cause her grievous bodily harm (GBH). Creepy’s prior experience with the drug leading to no ill effects suggests he did not intend to kill. Murder requires either direct intent or indirect (oblique) intent. If Creepy’s actions were not virtually certain to cause death (based on prior experience), proving indirect intent might be difficult.

2. Unlawful Act Manslaughter

• Unlawful Act: Creepy’s act of drugging Princess without her knowledge or consent is an unlawful act. This act can constitute a basis for unlawful act manslaughter if it meets the requirements.

• Dangerousness: According to R v Church [1966], the unlawful act must be dangerous to a reasonable person. Drugging someone to facilitate sexual intercourse without consent can be seen as dangerous.

• Causation: Creepy’s unlawful act caused Princess’s death. In Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993], it was established that causation is maintained even when a life-support machine is turned off, and the chain of causation is not broken by a subsequent omission.

Conclusion: Creepy could be liable for unlawful act manslaughter, given his unlawful act of drugging Princess, which was dangerous and caused her death. Murder might be less likely unless it can be proven he had the intent to kill or cause serious harm.

3. Rape

• Consent: Under s.79(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the sexual act must be consensual. Creepy’s act of drugging Princess to render her unconscious means she could not consent to the sexual activity at the time it occurred.

• Continuing Act: Consent must be given for each act of sexual activity. Since Princess was unconscious, she could not consent to any act performed during her unconscious state.

• Evidential Presumption (s.75): Under s.75, if a person is incapacitated due to drugs, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the victim consented.

Conclusion: Creepy’s actions would constitute rape, as Princess was incapable of giving valid consent due to being drugged.

Queeny’s Criminal Liability

1. Murder

• Actus Reus: Queeny’s act of turning off Princess’s life-support machine can be considered an act that led to Princess’s death.

• Omission vs. Act: In Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993], it was determined that withdrawing life support is an omission. However, in this case, Queeny’s act of turning off the machine is an affirmative act.

• Legal Causation: For Queeny to be liable for murder, her act must be a substantial and significant cause of Princess’s death. The case of R v Hughes [2013] indicates that the causal link must be substantial and significant. In this scenario, while Queeny’s action directly caused Princess's death, it can be argued that the primary cause of death was Creepy’s initial act of drugging.

Conclusion: Queeny’s action could be seen as an independent and potent cause of Princess’s death. However, given that the drugging by Creepy was the initial cause, it may be difficult to attribute the murder solely to Queeny’s action.

Morticia’s Criminal Liability

1. Murder

• Actus Reus and Mens Rea:

◦ Actus Reus: Morticia’s act of stabbing Crawley is the actus reus of murder.

◦ Mens Rea: For murder, Morticia must have had the intention to kill or cause GBH. The fact that she acted in a rage suggests a potential loss of control but does not necessarily negate the intent to kill.

2. Diminished Responsibility or Loss of Self-Control (LOSC)

• Diminished Responsibility: Morticia might argue for diminished responsibility if she can demonstrate a mental abnormality that impaired her ability to understand her actions or control her behaviour.

• Loss of Self-Control: Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a partial defence of loss of self-control might apply if Morticia acted in response to a qualifying trigger (such as fear of violence). However, the mis-hearing might not qualify as a provocation under this law.

Conclusion: Morticia’s liability for murder is clear based on her act of stabbing Crawley. A defence of diminished responsibility or loss of self-control might be explored, but it is unlikely to fully negate the charge of murder.