Introduction
This essay examines the criminal liability of Oliver in relation to the deaths of Marcus and Noah under English criminal law, specifically focusing on manslaughter for Marcus and murder for Noah. The scenarios present complex issues of causation, intent, and the application of legal principles such as the ‘thin skull rule’ and the chain of causation. By analysing relevant legal doctrines and case law, this essay aims to assess whether Oliver can be held criminally responsible for these deaths. The discussion will first address manslaughter in Marcus’s case before turning to the charge of murder concerning Noah, concluding with a summary of the key arguments.
Liability for Manslaughter of Marcus
In considering Oliver’s liability for Marcus’s death, the offence of manslaughter, specifically unlawful act manslaughter, is relevant. Unlawful act manslaughter requires an unlawful and dangerous act by the defendant that causes the victim’s death (Ormerod and Laird, 2021). Here, Oliver’s act of brandishing a knife and moving towards Marcus arguably constitutes an assault, an unlawful act under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This act was objectively dangerous as it could reasonably lead a person to flee, as Marcus did.
However, the crucial issue is causation. Marcus’s death resulted from being struck by a lorry while fleeing across a busy road. According to the principles established in R v Williams (1992), the victim’s response must be reasonably foreseeable and not ‘so daft’ as to break the chain of causation. Marcus’s decision to run across a busy road, while risky, might still be seen as a foreseeable reaction to the threat posed by Oliver. Furthermore, under the ‘thin skull rule’, Oliver must take his victim as he finds him, meaning any pre-existing vulnerabilities or poor decisions by Marcus do not absolve Oliver of liability (Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod, 2021).
Nevertheless, it could be argued that Marcus’s act of crossing the road constitutes a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation. Case law such as R v Roberts (1971) suggests that if the victim’s response is within a reasonable range of reactions to the threat, causation remains intact. Given the immediacy of the danger from Oliver, it is likely that a court would find causation established, rendering Oliver liable for unlawful act manslaughter.
Liability for Murder of Noah
Turning to Noah’s death, the charge of murder requires proof of actus reus (the unlawful killing of a human being) and mens rea (the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm) as per R v Vickers (1957). Oliver’s act of striking Noah multiple times on the head with a baseball bat clearly constitutes an unlawful act. The severity and repetition of the blows suggest an intention to cause at least grievous bodily harm, satisfying the mens rea for murder (Ormerod and Laird, 2021).
Causation again poses a challenge, as Perry dragged Noah to the hospital, dropping him multiple times, and Noah died the next day. However, under the principles in R v Cheshire (1991), subsequent acts or medical negligence do not break the chain of causation unless they are so independent and potent as to render the original injury insignificant. Perry’s actions, while negligent, are unlikely to be deemed sufficiently independent to absolve Oliver, as the initial head injuries were likely the substantial cause of death. Therefore, Oliver’s liability for murder appears well-founded.
Conclusion
In summary, Oliver is likely to be held liable for the manslaughter of Marcus through unlawful act manslaughter, as his threatening behaviour with a knife caused Marcus to flee and suffer a fatal accident, with causation arguably intact. For Noah’s death, Oliver’s actions in striking him repeatedly with a bat satisfy the requirements for murder, both in terms of intent and causation, despite Perry’s intervening acts. These conclusions highlight the complexities of causation in criminal law and the importance of foreseeability in determining liability. Further judicial interpretation would be required to confirm these outcomes, but based on established legal principles, Oliver faces significant criminal responsibility.
References
- Ormerod, D. and Laird, K. (2021) Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law. 16th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Smith, J.C., Hogan, B. and Ormerod, D. (2021) Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. 15th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
