S2 A

Memorial For Appellant

IN THE HONOURABLE COURT OF APPEAL OF UK

Michelle Gilrose ____________________________________ Appellant

VERSUS

Crown Prosecution
Service___________________________________________
Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
II. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1
IV. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
V. PLEADINGS
VI. PRAYER OF RELIEF

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Case law:
R v Byrne (1960)

[R V WHITE]

HOLLAND CASE

KENNEDY CASE

ROBERTS CASE

Statutes:
S.2 of the Homicide Act 1957

S.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

S.2 Suicide Act 1961

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
1. Is there any defense available to the Appellant which could reduce her conviction to that
of voluntary manslaughter?

2. Was the chain of causation leading from Michelle’s acts to Aman’s death broken at any
point?

2
3. Alternatively, were the Appellant’s acts sufficient to form the basis for a charge of
constructive manslaughter?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Aman was born on 21 December 2000. He was a Pakistani immigrant in London. Aman’s mental health
condition was not good as he a introvert and got easily irritable. His lack of participation concerned
teacher who suggested that he was suffering from clinical depression as he was showing symptoms akin
to it but Aman’s parents did not have him diagnosed and would subject him to constant verbal abuse.
When his parents moved towards Northern Yorkshire he was then enrolled in a local school where was
the only Asian student and was then subjected to constant bullying by his beers. Michelle Gilrose was a
girl year senior to Aman who used to subject Aman to assault constantly for which he used to get some
cuts and bruises. Michelle Gilrose was abandoned by his abusive parents two years ago and which she
frightening nightmares. She still got the nightmares. She also used to get in trouble in school for which
her parents had her see a counselor who suggested that she might be suffering from PTSD and she ought
to see a psychiatrist but Michelle refused to go.

Till 19 December Michelle would usually assault Aman. On 20 December 2018 when Aman was leaving
school at 3 pm he ran to Michelle and yelled "you bully me because you have no parents". This enraged
Michelle and she pushedAman down and started kicking him constantly and kept screaming "do every
one a favor and go kill yourself". She led Aman unconscious and threw him a knife and yelled "kill
yourself and leave us alone" and ran away. Aman regained consciousness at 8 20 pm. He was disoriented
and on his way to home another group of drunk men threw a bottle towards him and yelled out" go back

3
where you come from "Aman then decided that enough is enough and 11:10 he locked himself in
bathroom and cut his wrist which resulted in a serious blood loss and became unconscious after 2 hours
and 15 minutes Aman’s parents took him to the hospital where Aman regained consciousness, the doctor
told him that he would need a blood transfusion because his kidney is weak and his blood ran the risk of
an infection. Aman refused blood transfusion because he was afraid of blood and he did not want to live
any more. Three days later on 23 December 2018 Aman passed away due to a blood infection his
attempted suicide and death was taken to investigation and upon investigation a note was found from
Aman in his room "I cannot take every one's abuse anymore. I wish I was never born. I'm doing everyone
a favor now. Thankyou for the pocket knife. Michelle was held liable for murder in first instance court.
She appealed on the basis that her lawyer had not argued her case strongly enough as she was at least
eligible for her conviction to be knock down to voluntary manslaughter if not for a complete acquittal
because she did was not actual cause of Aman’s death. The respondent in the appeal argued that Michelle
was not liable for such reduced conviction as no defense applied and that the chain of causation was
unbroken. Alternatively, it was argued that she could be guilty of constructive manslaughter if not for
murder.

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Is there any defense available to the Appellant which could reduce her conviction to that
of voluntary manslaughter?

Yes, there is partial defense of diminished responsibility

available to appellant which could reduce her conviction to that of voluntary manslaughter

2. Was the chain of causation leading from Michelle’s acts to Aman’s death broken at any
point?

Yes, the chain of causation was broken at a point leading from Michelle’s act to Aman’s death
because her actions were not the substantial and operative cause of Aman’s death .

4
3. Alternatively, were the Appellant’s acts sufficient to form the basis for a charge of
constructive manslaughter?

Yes,Appellant can be charged for the constructive manslaughter based on his previous record of
assaulting the victim. Also, based on his latest act of beating the victim.

PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1: Is there any defense available to the appellant which could reduce her conviction
to that of voluntary manslaughter?

Yes, there is a partial defense of diminished responsibility available to the appellant which could knock
down the conviction to that of voluntary manslaughter.

Argument 1:

The appellant had a certified psychological mental health condition called PTSD (Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder), which could reduce her conviction from murder to voluntary
manslaughter. A person to be held have PTSD must have one of these symptoms

1. Irritability
2. Angry outbursts
3. Sleeping problems
4. Difficulty in concentrating
5. Flash backs
6. Frightening nightmares
7. Repetitive and distressing imiges and cencation

5
 My lord as a matter of fact we know Mitchell as a two-year-old, had been abandoned by her
abusive and addict parents, after which she had recurring frightening nightmares up until the age
of ten. She still got these nightmares occasionally. Since her parents abandoned her, Michelle has
been moved from one foster home to another, with the same complaint from all her foster parents
that she would be aggressive towards the other children, pay no heed to their pleas and would
often get in trouble at school for getting into fights. my lords she had all the symptoms to be held
a phsycatric patient of PTSD and that is the only reason why the councilor suggest that she might
have PTSD. So my lord it is clear that michelle had a phsyciatric illness on the basis of which
she can be given the partial defence of diminish responsibility.

My Lords as mentioned in pg of our memorial.

As Diminished responsibility is set out in s.2 of the Homicide Act 19571 as amended by s.52 of
the Coroners and Justice Act 20092.In section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (c. 11) (persons suffering
from diminished responsibility), for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1)A person (“D”) who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was
suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which—
(a)arose from a recognised medical condition,
(b)substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and
(c)provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
(1A)Those things are—
(a)to understand the nature of D's conduct;
(b)to form a rational judgment;
(c)to exercise self-control.
(1B)For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D's
conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing, D to carry out that conduct.”

(2)In section 6 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) (evidence by prosecution of insanity or
diminished responsibility), in paragraph (b) for “mind” substitute “ mental functioning ”.
The defendant successfully fulfilled the requirements of the act to rely on the defense:

Argument 2

My Lord,as a matter of fact it is clear that on the day the incident happened Aman came to Mitchell after
his class threw his shoe on her and taunted her that she only bullies him because she has no parents

My lord! anyone in the same situation with a same history of abuse and with the same mental condition
would have surely lossed her self control . As per the case of R v Byrne (19603) 2 Q.B 396 it was held

1 S2 Homicide Act 1957

2 S.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
3 R vs Bryne 1960

6
that Diminished responsibility covers all the activities of the mind. Abnormality of the mind does not
have to be connected with madness and the defense was successfully pleaded. Hence, the defendant
reasonably satisfied that because of her abnormality of the mind her mental ability was substantially
impaired to either form a rational judgment or to exercise self- control.

ISSUE 2: Was the chain of causation leading from Michelle’s acts to Aman’s death broken at any
point?

Yes, the chain of causation leading from Michelle’s acts to Aman’s death was broken.

Argument 1:

Michelle is not the factual cause of Aman’s death if we apply ‘But for Test’ which fails to be fulfilled
because the act performed by her didn’t constituted Aman’s death. Aman would not have died, if he had
not willingly and voluntarily slit his wrist. (R v White [1910]4

Argument 2:

Furthermore, his health condition became more worse when he regained consciousness. Doctor’s
informed him that he would need a blood transfusion as his kidneys were weak and his blood ran the risk
of an infection. Aman refused the blood transfusion; despite being informed that he would need the
treatment in order to save his life as he was afraid of blood and he didn’t want to live anyway anymore.

Argument 3:

The chain of causation was broken because of the intervening acts of the victim as Michelle just threw a
pocket knife towards Aman, she didn’t perform a single act which assisted him to slit his wrist. He was
fully conscious and, in his senses, it was the voluntary act of Aman which caused his death. Aman had the
mental capacity for his choice, responsible for his conduct. (Roberts and the draft criminal code)
(Kennedy 2007). 5

Argument 4: Michelle is not the legal cause of Aman’s death because her actions of kicking Aman when
he was lying on the floor is not directly attributable to the end result. Her actions were not substantial
cause of the harm or injury and were not operative at all at the time of the death.

ISSUE 3:Alternatively, were the Appellant’s acts sufficient to form the basis for a charge of
constructive manslaughter?

ARGUMENT 1; APPELLANT HAS NOT COMMITTED THE MURDER .

Yes, the appellant can be convicted of constructive manslaughter but not for murder. First of all, appellant
has not committed the murder.

Yes, appellant can be convicted of constructive manslaughter not for murder. Murder requires Particular
actus reus which is unlawful killing in the king’s peace and mens rea of murder which is intention to kill

4 R v White 1910
5 kennedy 2007

7
or cause GBH and the causation also needs to be also proven. None of the appellant acts have met the
criteria for murder. Appellant act ok kicking can amount to assault by battery but that did not result in
killing of Aman cut his wrist voluntarily by his own. Appellant mens rea to cause GBH cannot solely
build the conviction for murder.

If we prove causation then the but for test also fails " but for Michelle bullying Aman would Aman had
died "a clear answer to that will be no. No the appellant acts were not sufficient to cause death of Aman.
However, Aman' s death involve a lot of other factors. First, Aman’s parents’ negligence and second
carelessness of the doctor. However, the legal causation is also not meet as the Michelle acts (kicking,
bullying) were not substantive and operational cause at the time of Aman's death. Aman’s death was a
result of blood infection. The Blaue principle will not be applied here. Blaue principle is applied where
the defendant initiates fight or injures the victim but here the victim himself giving cutting his wrist .
[Holland case and Hayward case]

ARGUMENT 2; APPELLANT CAN BE CONVICTED OF CONSTRUCTIVE

MANSLAUGHTER

Yes appellant can be convicted of constructive manslaughter .Appellant committed unlawful act of
assisting suicide which is crime under section 2 of SUICIDE ACT 1961 WHICH SAYS THAT A person
who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to
commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment . This unlawful act
is indeed dangerous as the test for the dangerousness is an objective test [CHRUCH CASE] .6
The chain of causation is not broken in terms of appellant assisting the victim to suicide . The
but for test qualifies ‘but for Michelle assisting and encouraging Aman would Aman had died ‘ a
clear answer to this question is no . the factual causation is also met as the Michelle acts were
the substantial cause of Aman’s death .Thus the Michelle can be convicted of constructive
manslaughter but not for murder .

PRAYER FOR RELIFE

The Appellant, therefore, prays for the following, inter alia, reliefs:

Judgment and Decree in favor of finding the Appellant charge to be knock down to voluntary
manslaughter, if not for a complete acquittal.

6 Church