Faculty of Law, Governance and International Relations
Law Section

LL1014 CRIMINAL LAW I
Autumn Semester 2011

ESSAY AND QUESTION

Introduction

The below report will be discussing the criminal liability of husband Tom, and Nurse Freya in the death of Rachel. An analysis will be conducted on each defendant and charges against each of them will be established along with definitions of each offence. The principles of causation, actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR) will be discussed and relevant laws applied to the facts within each case and relevant laws applied.

The first section of the report, R v Tom we will be discussing the criminal liability of Tom in the death of Rachel in which both murder and manslaughter charges will be considered. The AR for both of these offences is the same and can be defined as “The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace.”[1] Assuming the victim was alive that this scenario was not during a war, it remains to establish that this was an unlawful killing.

In the case of R v Freya we will focus on the AR of omission and determine whether the defendant Nurse Freya did the act or omitted to do a legally recognised duty which resulted in the death of Rachel. We will also decide whether the act was deliberate, unlawful, and a significant cause of death. In the case of R v Freya only a charge of manslaughter will be considered as Nurse Freya had neither the direct or oblique intent to be charged with murder.

R v Tom

In the case of R v Tom the defendant Tom (D) swung a metal poker into the head of his wife V (V). V was sent to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured skull but regained consciousness. Upon waking V found painkillers by her bed and took an overdose resulting in her death.

There are several elements that constitute the AR of