Introduction
This essay examines the legal implications of a scenario in which Andem strikes Bassey with the intent to kill, believes Bassey to be dead, and disposes of his body in a river, only for Bassey to die later due to exposure to cold. The central question is whether Andem can be convicted of murder or attempted murder under English criminal law. This analysis will explore the elements of murder, including actus reus and mens rea, the principle of causation, and the applicability of attempted murder. By applying relevant legal principles and case law, the essay aims to determine the most likely outcome of a charge against Andem, considering the complexities arising from the chain of events leading to Bassey’s death.
Defining Murder and Establishing Intent
Murder under English law is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, encompassing both the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm (Coke, 1797, as cited in Ormerod et al., 2018). The actus reus of murder requires an unlawful act resulting in death, while the mens rea necessitates intent. In this scenario, Andem strikes Bassey with the explicit intent to kill, thereby satisfying the mens rea for murder at the moment of the initial act. However, the critical issue lies in whether Andem’s actions directly caused Bassey’s death, given that death resulted from exposure to cold after being thrown into the river.
Indeed, Andem’s belief that Bassey was already dead when disposing of the body complicates the attribution of intent at that stage. Although the initial strike was accompanied by murderous intent, the subsequent act of disposal lacked such intent, as Andem no longer believed he was causing harm to a living person. This distinction is crucial in assessing whether the full offence of murder can be established.
Causation and the Chain of Events
Causation in criminal law requires that the defendant’s act be both a factual and legal cause of the victim’s death. Factual causation follows the ‘but for’ test, asking whether the death would have occurred without the defendant’s actions (R v White, 1910). Here, but for Andem striking Bassey and disposing of his body in the river, Bassey would not have died from exposure. Thus, factual causation is arguably established.
Legal causation, however, demands that the defendant’s act be a significant and operative cause of death, without an intervening act breaking the chain of causation (R v Smith, 1959). In this case, the exposure to cold in the river directly led to Bassey’s death. It is likely that a court would find Andem’s act of throwing Bassey into the river to be a substantial cause, as no independent intervening event appears to break the causal link. Therefore, despite Andem’s belief that Bassey was dead, his actions remain a legal cause of the eventual death.
Attempted Murder as an Alternative Charge
If a court determines that the causal link for murder is insufficient due to Andem’s lack of intent during the disposal, a charge of attempted murder may be considered. Attempted murder requires proof of an intention to kill and an act that is more than merely preparatory (Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1(1)). Andem’s initial strike, performed with the intent to kill, clearly meets this threshold. Even if the prosecution cannot secure a murder conviction due to complexities in causation, a conviction for attempted murder remains a viable option, as the initial act satisfies the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Andem could potentially be convicted of murder if the court finds that his actions—both the initial strike and the disposal of Bassey’s body—constitute a continuous course of conduct causing death, with the requisite intent established at the outset. The principles of causation, as demonstrated in case law, suggest that Andem’s actions are likely to be deemed a significant cause of Bassey’s death, despite his mistaken belief. However, if causation or intent is deemed insufficient for murder, a conviction for attempted murder remains probable, given the clear intent to kill during the initial strike. This case illustrates the nuanced application of legal principles in determining liability for homicide, highlighting the importance of intent and causation in criminal law. Ultimately, the prosecution’s success will depend on how the court interprets the sequence of events and Andem’s state of mind at each stage.
References
- Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1(1). United Kingdom Legislation.
- Ormerod, D., Smith, J. C., & Hogan, B. (2018) Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law. 15th edn. Oxford University Press.
- R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35.
- R v White [1910] 2 KB 124.
