Student ID Number: G20980009 Supervisor: Martine Marie Gontier

Module Title: Criminal law Programme Title: LLB (Hons) with

English Law

Module Code: LW2502 Year of Study: 2022-23

Word Count: 1490 Submission Date: 02 May 2023 (11.59pm -

UK Time)
Discuss the criminal liability of Aaron for Sarah’s death and

critically assess the scope of any defences on which he may rely.

This assignment will be discussing the criminal liability of Aaron for Sarah’ death and will

access any defences on which Aaron may rely. Aaron’s action or omission to act will be

accessed under legal provision for homicide. Homicides are unlawful killing such as murder,

voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter etc. According to the fact of the scenario,

Aaron criminal liability will be access for murder.

The criteria to establish murder are set in Sir Edward Coke’s definition, the unlawful killing

of a human being under Queen’s peace with malice aforethought1. In order to satisfy murder,

both the Actus Reus which is the guilty act and Mensrea which is the guilty mind, must be

satisfied. It is clear from the fact, concerning Sarah’ death, the Actus Reus is satisfied. Sarah

is a human being and there is no evidence of self defence. Thus, the killing is unlawful.

Moreover, the killing also occurs within the Queen’ peace and not in time of war. Applying

the tests of causation, it has to be proved that there is a direct and unbroken link between

Aaron act and criminal consequences.2 Thus factual causation is established because, but for

Aaron’ action that is, stabbing Sarah through the heart, Sarah would not have died.3

According to the facts, since there are no complicating factors, factual causation on its own

will suffice to establish causation4. As a conclusive note, it is clear that Aaron satisfied the

element of Actus Reus.

1
Padfield, N. (2016) Criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2
Storey, T., Wortley, N. and Martin, J. (2022) Unlocking criminal law. Routledge.

3
R v White [1910] 2 KB 124.

4
Causation in criminal liability. Available at: https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-criminal-
liability.php (Accessed: April 20, 2023).
It is also important to consider the Mens Rea for murder or malice aforethought. Malice

aforethought has been interpreted in the courts as meaning intention to kill and intention to

cause GBH5. Considering direct intent, a person who has the causing death as his aim,

purpose or goal has direct intention to kill.6 However, if direct intent is not established,

oblique intent should be considered. Applying the case, R v Woollin 1998,7 to illustrate the

test for oblique intention, where it is stated that a jury may find that a defendant intented an

outcome, if it was a virtually certain consequences of his actions and he realized this was the

case.

Applying to the fact of the case, it is clear that Sarah is a human being and Aaron did not

acted in self defence, so therefore, it is unlawful. The incident did not happen during war

time. Aaron act kills Sarah as, but for his actions (factual causation), Sarah would not have

died and the action is an operating cause of death (legal causation) as there is no other

intervening act. Thus Actus Reus is established. Concerning the Mensrea for murder, it is

clear that Aaron had a direct intent to kill as after stabbing Sarah’ heart, she died instantly and

Aaron continued stabbing Sarah for a further fifteen times as the latter wanted her dead, thus

there is no need to established oblique intent. Both the element of Actus Reus and Mensrea is

satisfied and as a result Aaron will be likely to be convicted for murder.

However, Aaron may plead the partial defences of loss and control or diminished

responsibility. These are both statutory defences and they are defences to murder only. If

Aaron is successful in pleading either loss of control or diminished responsibility, he will be

convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder. Diminished responsibility recognises

that, it is less culpable to kill when the mind is disturbed that, it is to kill when is operating

5
R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664.
6
Mohan 1976 QB1.
7
R v Woollin 1998.
normally.8 This can be found under S.2 Homicide Act 1957 (as amended by s.52 Coroners

and Justice Act 2009). The burden of proving diminished responsibility is on the defence9 and

must be proven on a balance of probabilities.10 The defendant must prove that at that time of

the killing; was he suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning11, which arose from

recognized medical conditions? If yes, to these two elements, did it substantially impair

defendant’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, to from rationale judgment, or to

exercise self control.12 More so, defence should also provide an explanation for the

defendant’ acts or omission in the killing.13

Applying to the scenario, Aaron is suffering from depression, partly as a result of the

aftereffects of Coronavirus, which does constitute as an abnormality of mental functioning

arising from a recognised medical condition, as mentioned in case R v Seers 1984.14 Medical

evidence will be required to satisfy this element.15 Thus, this substantially impaired Aaron’

ability to form rational judgment or to exercise self control and that led Aaron to kill. Finally,

Aaron’s mental impairment will provide an explanation for the killing Sarah. On the facts, the

defence of diminished responsibility is likely to be successful.

Moreover, Aaron may rely also on the defence of loss of control which introduced by s 54

and s55 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This replaced the defence of provocation that was

found under s3 of the Homicide Act 1967. If loss of control is successful, it is likely to reduce

the defendant liability from murder to manslaughter.16 According to s54 of the Coroners and

Justice Act 2009, a person kills or is party to a killing of another, will not be convicted for

8
Storey, T., Wortley, N. and Martin, J. (2022) Unlocking criminal law. Routledge.

9
S.2(2), Homicide Act 1957.
10
R v Dunbar [1958] 1 QB 1.
11
s.2(1)(a) Homicide Act 1957.
12
s.2(1)(A) Homicide Act 1957.
13
s.2(1)(c) Homicide Act 1957.
14
R v Seers 1984.
15
R v Bunch 2013.
16
s 54(7)Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
murder if: (i) Defendant’s acts and omission in doing or being to the killing resulted from

Defendant’s loss of self control17, (ii) the loss of self control had a qualifying trigger18 and

(iii) a person of Defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint

and in the circumstances of Defendant, might have reacted in the same or similar way to

Defendant19.

Applying to the fact it is clear that, Aaron grabs a kitchen knife and lunges at Sarah, stabbing

her through the heart, is the evidence that Aaron indeed lose self control. It does not matter

whether or not the loss of control was sudden20 and this also established in case Rv Dawes

2013.21 Moreover, Aaron did not acted in a considered desire for revenge.22 The second

element to be considered is whether there is a qualifying trigger.23 Fear trigger and anger

trigger are the two qualifying triggers and either one or a combination of both is enough for

loss of control.24 The fear trigger is like to be unsuccessful as there is no evidence that Aaron

feared violence from Sarah and thus this trigger will not apply here. The anger trigger is one

which is attributable to a thing or thing done or said or both, which, constituted circumstances

of an extreme grave character and caused Aaron to have a justifiable sense of being seriously

wronged.25 It is not clear that, Sarah was laughing and joking about his depression, and

therefore not clear if ever this have constituted to a thing or thing done or said or both, which,

constituted circumstances of an extreme grave character and caused Aaron to have a

justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Moreover, in their ensuing argument, Sarah

17
s54(1)(a) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
18
s54(1)(b) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

19
s54(1)(c) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

20
s54(2) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

21
Rv Dawes 2013.
22
s54(4) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

23
s55 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
24
s55(5) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
25
s55(4) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
admits that she has been having an affair with John which constitutes as sexual infidelity.

According to the case R v Clinton (2012,)26 it should be disregarded in determining whether

there is a qualifying trigger. This is likely to leave Aaron unsuccessful in establishing the

defence for loss of control.

As a conclusive note, Aaron caused the death of Sarah and had the requisite actus reus and

mensrea for murder. He is more likely to be successful with a plea of diminished

responsibility.

26
R v Clinton 2012
Bibliography
Books
Padfield, N. (2016) Criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Storey, T., Wortley, N. and Martin, J. (2022) Unlocking criminal law. Routledge

Cases
Mohan 1976 QB1
R v Bunch 2013
R v Clinton 2012
R v Dawes 2013
R v Dunbar [1958] 1 QB 1
R v Seers 1984
R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664
R v White [1910] 2 KB 124
R v Woollin 1998

Statutes

s 54(7)Coroners and Justice Act 2009

s.2(1)(a) Homicide Act 1957
s.2(1)(A) Homicide Act 1957
s.2(1)(c) Homicide Act 1957
S.2(2) Homicide Act 1957
s54(1)(a) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s54(1)(b) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s54(1)(c) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s54(2) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s54(4) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s55 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s55(4) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
s55(5) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Website
Causation in criminal liability. Available at: https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-
criminal-liability.php (Accessed: April 20, 2023)