Practice moot

You will find the case of R v Jones below.

Please prepare your skeleton arguments for this practice moot, in role. The focus is on

phrasing submissions precisely, concisely and with a valuable ‘because’. You will also

address accurately citing cases. Please note your tutors will not mark the skeletons, but you

can email them to your tutor for feedback.

“Smith voluntarily chose to bring about his death when he refused to seek medical

treatment. This voluntary act breaks the chain of causation between the injury inflicted by

Jones, and Smith’s death.”

R v Jones

In the Court of Appeal

Smith and Jones are partners in a crime and committed robbery in a jewellry shop. So, both

known each other prior the incident happened as explained below. They verbally agreed to

distribute the shares equally after the act was completed.

One day, Jones stabs Smith in anger, but we are unsure of what contributed to his anger.

Jones stabbed Smith four times including one heavy stab across his chest. Smith denied

receiving medical treatment the day following the event. Smith was also asked a second

chance from his sister if he wanted to seek medical aid but rejected the offer.
The term ‘provocation’ can be used in this scenario since Jones lost his mind and was

unconscious at the time of the incident. Jones did not want anything bad to happen to his

partner supposedly. How would a reasonable man want anything to happen to his partner?

Would there be something we don’t know triggering his actions which constituted Jones to

pull out his anger.

So, Jones can use loss of control and provocation as his defence. The chain of causation was

broken when the event broke the element of negligence. Since there wasn’t foreseeability

then Jones is not held liable since it was unreasonable for him to have known Smith wasn’t

willing to seek medical help.

Novus Actus Interveniens arises when something new stops the chain of causation. A case

where we can examine is R v Blaue where the trial judge reduced the sentence from murder

to manslaughter with diminished responsibility. Blaue had shown actus reas and mens rea

for stabbing the victim. Whereas, Jones only had slight capability in actus reus without

mens rea. So, Jones does not have anything intention in inflicting bodily harm. Did Jones

only want to scare his partner ?

Jones now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

1) Blaue was ‘convicted’ because his intentions were clear he wanted to stab and

attempt to commit grievous bodily harm. But Jones only stabbed his partner

Smith once without a second attempt so would Jones have regretted this mistake

? Also, Smith voluntarily chose to stop receiving medical treatment and the chain

of causation was thus broken. This was just a careless conduct as seen in R v

Jordan, where the defendant stabbed the victim and the victim died from

medical treatment in the hospital and not from stabbing. The defendant was not

liable for his actions.

2) Is ‘substantial dishonest’ for Smith a criminal liability for him to consider as well ?

Smith was not acting in good faith maybe because he doesn’t want hospital staffs

to acknowledge he was injured from committing a robbery with his partner.

(R v Jordan)