Criminal Liability on the Example of a Case Essay Example

after Edward, and stabbing him in the leg, we can see that there is no break in the chain of causation, as per R v Smith.

In response to this, Dave could offer one of two defences; Provocation or Diminished responsibility. If Dave were to present provocation, there is a 3 stage test involved, where there needs to be evidence for the jury that the person being charged was provoked to lose his self control by something said or done, and that the provocation was enough to make a “reasonable man” act the way the defendant did, and the defendant acted in a “hot blooded response”. For the defence to be allowed, all three of these stages need to be present.

In the case of Dave and Edward however, only 2 of these 3 criteria are present, as something was said or done by Edward (he swore at Dave before walking off), and what Dave did was in a hot blooded response, as he went straight to the house, grabbed the knife and “ran after” Edward, however the defence fails when it comes down to the reasonable man test, as a reasonable man would not run after another man with a knife and stab them in the leg, therefore the defence of provocation cannot be applied, as per Ahluwalia.

When this defence has failed, Dave can then present the defence of Diminished Responsibility. Diminished responsibility is defined under S2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, and is any abnormality of the mined caused by either arrested/retarded development, inherent causes, diseases or injury. It also has to substantially impair the defendant’s mental responsibility for his or her actions (as per

Byrne). If a defence of diminished responsibility can be proven on a balance of probabilities, D will charged with manslaughter rather than murder.

In this case, it is evident that there is some form of abnormality of mind in the respect that Dave had “become obsessive about cleaning his car and ensuring that he could park it outside his house. ” If this wasn’t evidence enough that he was not your average “reasonable person”, He also “suffered great stress and became angry when he was prevented from doing either”. This is sufficient evidence for this defence as the Court of Appeal held that Abnormality of mind is wide enough to cover: the perception of physical acts and matters, and the ability to exercise willpower to control physical acts in accordance with that rational judgement.

As we can see, being obsessive over your car is not rational, and “obsessive” means it is impossible to control your own actions, therefore the defence of Diminished Responsibility is applicable to Dave. The most similar case to this was that of “Byrne” who was a sexual psychopath who claimed he had “irresistible desires” that he could not control. To conclude, I believe that Dave will not be charged with murder, but with manslaughter due to the defence of diminished responsibility. This means that the sentence carried is left wide open to the judge who can give him anything from 0 years to life.