ILAC II

By

David R.
 Scenario

Dirk and Diggler are aged eleven and thirteen years respectively. While

rambling around town, they come across a group of boys whom they do not like.

There is name calling on both sides. Some stones are thrown, and Dirk and

Diggler threw a few in retaliation. One of the stones hits target, a boy called

Lance, who is left with a small cut and a nasty bump over the eye.

Later that evening, lance complains to his parents that he is feeling unwell. His

parents do not believe in conventional medicine and give lance a herbal remedy

of their own drawing for his headache, nausea and dizziness. Lance’s symptoms

do not go away and five days later he collapses, dead.

A post mortem reveals that Lance died from the stone inflicted injury, having an

unusually weak skull. On the other hand, the pathologist’s report states that

prompt medical attention would certainly have saved him.

Step 1:

Identify the potential criminal event(s) in the facts.

The potential criminal events in the facts include the public quarrelling of Dirk and

Diggler with other boys in the public resulting into nuisance and public disturbance.

Names were called and stones were thrown from both sides mean to say that both

parties were equally involved in the criminal act of rioting. Unfortunately, the unlucky

Lance got hit by a stone over his eye resulting into a cut and nasty bump over the eye

which ultimately caused his death, although his tragic death was the result of separate

series of events. No matter what who initiated the fight, both parties were actively

involved in the criminal act of public quarrelling or rioting hence both parties were

liable for damages.

Step 2:

Identify the potential Offence(s):

A number of offences are involved in the given scenario. Firstly, the rioting between

Dirk, Diggler and other party is in itself an offence coming into the ambit of nuisance,

regardless who inflicted damage and to whom. Such a fight is the first offence which

both parties committed and both parties must be held liable for the consequences.

Secondly, main offence was committed by Dirk and Diggler whereby there thrown

stone had severely hit Lance and injured him severely. But in this situation, the

intention of Dirk and Diggler is questionable. Whether they were intending to kill

Lance or anyone else while throwing stone or not is worth noticing. As we know,

malafide intention or mens rea is essential for constituting an offence, hence their

intention of killing or not would be first proved in order them to be convicted.

Another factor is their minor age. Dirk and Diggler are eleven and thirteen years old

hence they are minor and their offence would not be compared to the one who is

major. Hence their offence would be of juvenile in nature. Another important factor is

the criminal negligence of the parents of whereby they did not attend the severity of

the health of their child. They did not give him proper medical attention which

resulted his death after five days, the pathologist’s report made it clear that if he had

given the proper medical attention and medication, he would have easily survived.

Hence, to me the offence of criminal negligence regarding underestimating the

severity of injury has also been committed by Lance’s parents.

Step 3:

Applying the offence(s) to the facts

As we know, at the base of every offence there lies two things. One is Mens Rea or

having criminal intention of committing offence and second is Actus Rea or actually
committing that offence whether by act or omission. So before convicting an accused

over an alleged offence, these two things must be satisfied. In other words, for an

offence to be constituted, there must be a criminal intent to harm someone and

afterwards, implementing that intention through an act or omission. In our scenario, it

is mentioned that the group of boys whom Dirk and Diggler fought with was not liked

by the later. Hence, they just fought resulting in a serious injury to one of the guy. The

Mens Rea of both of them is questionable as whether they had any intention of killing

Lance or not. To me, the circumstances predict that they had no intention of actually

killing him, if it would has been the case, they would not have used the stones for

murdering him. Therefore, the first element of convicting them on offence of murder

is not seems to be satisfied.

But regardless of the Mens Rea to be there or not, there is actual injury resulted which

ultimately caused Lance’s death so there was other element actively involved which is

Actus Rea whereby act of stoning has caused bodily injury to Lance. Although, the

cause of death was injury due to stone hit, but the tragic death was caused by series of

unfortunate events of criminal negligence by Lance’s parents too. Therefore, to me,

the boys must be convicted over the offence of bodily injuring the boy but should not

be charged them with the offence of murder.

Step 4:

Consider Defences:

In our scenario, there are couple of defences that defendants can use to avoid severe

conviction. The defendants might take the plea of, to avoid conviction of murder, not

having Mens Rea to kill or harm Lance as they would say that other boys were also

throwing stones towards us and we thrown some in retaliation which resulted in the

injury of one of them. We did not intend to harm or kill someone. Secondly, they
would say that although the injury had happened, it was not the serious injury but the

physiological weakness of Lance that lead him to death. They can resort to post

mortem report which proved that Lance had weak skull that could not bear the brunt

of stone. Anyhow, they would say, if Lance would have strong skull which generally

the boys at his age possess, he might have survived. Thirdly, they might take the plea

of criminal negligence of Lance’s parents which lead it to his death. They would say

that five days earlier, Lance complained of feeling unwell, but there was no medical

attention given to him in five days which is the main cause of his death. Even a small

injury to head or skull, if not given proper medical attention, can lead to death and

that was actually what happened. For this, they can resort to Pathologist’s report

which said that if lance had been given proper medical treatment earlier, he would

easily have survived.

Step 5:

Conclusion:

To conclude, we can say that for every criminal offence, two factors must be satisfied

before convicting someone. One factor is having bad intention of doing the act and

second is the act or omission to implement that intention. In our scenario, the

intention to harm or kill anyone before duel was not found. Similarly, the act of

harming lance with stone was actually found, it had nothing to do with the intention to

actually kill him with that stone. The tragic death was not only by the result of stone

injury but also due to some physiological weakness and human miscalculations.

Therefore, the boys can’t be convicted for the death of Lance because only one factor

is satisfied here. But having said that, they would definitely be penalised over injuring

Lance and they can be convicted for some years behind bars for playing an important

part in Lance’s death.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,