Imc 054R

IMC-054-RESPONDENT
IN THE
HONOURABLE COURT OF APPEAL
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
THE 4TH DLS INTRA MOOT COMPETITION, 2022
THE CROWN
(RESPONDENT)
V.
WALTER WHITE & J.PINKMAN
(APPELANT)
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

DENNING LAW SCHOOL 5TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2023
Table of Contents
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................3
SUMMARY OF FACTS.................................................................................................................4
ISSUES RAISED.............................................................................................................................9
a. The judge has failed to raise the matter of legal causation, particularly, the issue of
“breaking the chain of causation” before the jury. Walter pleads that the chain of causation has
been broken..................................................................................................................................9
b. The trial judge did not erred in not issuing the directions to jury (commonly called the
Turnbull Directions) pertaining to the evidence which identified Pinkman as the man who
killed Jane....................................................................................................................................9
c. Even if the there was evidence to prove the commission of the offence, the partial defense
of “Loss of Self Control” should have been available to J. Pinkman, which was not put
forward to the jury........................................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................................10
a. The judge has successfully raised the matter of legal causation, particularly, the issue of
not been broken..........................................................................................................................10
b. The trial judge did not err in not issuing the directions to jury (commonly called the
killed Jane..................................................................................................................................10
c. Even if the there was evidence to prove the commission of the offence, the partial defense
of “Loss of Self Control” should not have been available to J. Pinkman, which was put
forward to the jury......................................................................................................................11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.......................................................................................................12
not been broken..........................................................................................................................12
killed Jane..................................................................................................................................13
c. the partial defense of loss of self control is not available to Mr. Pinkman:.......................15
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 1

PRAYER........................................................................................................................................18

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
In R v McCullagh [2002] EWCA Crim 2783------------------------------------------------------------14
R v Adams (1957) 2 QB 282-------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
R v Cheshire (1991) 2 ALL ER 670----------------------------------------------------------------------13
R v Dawes (Carlos) [2003] EWCA Crim 322-----------------------------------------------------------16
R v Goodwin [2018] EWCA Crim 2287; [2018] 4 W.L.R 165---------------------------------------17
R v Hanson [2005] 2 WLR 709----------------------------------------------------------------------------15
R v Hanson [2005] UKHL 31------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
R v Johnson (Christopher Richard) [1989] 1 W.L.R 740, [1989] 4 WLUK 222-------------------17
R v Li [2009] EWCA Crim 2074--------------------------------------------------------------------------14
R v Malcherek and Steel (1981) 1 WLR 690------------------------------------------------------------13
R v Quayle and Others [2005] EWCA Crim 1415------------------------------------------------------15
R v Smith (1959) 2 QB-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
R v Smith [1959] 2QB 35----------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
STATUTES
Coroners and Justice Act 2009-----------------------------------------------------------------------------15
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Ashworth's principles of Criminal Law-------------------------------------------------------------------12
William Wilson, Seventh Edition-------------------------------------------------------------------------12

SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. Based on the Statement of Agreed Facts provided, it appears that there is a conflict between
two gangs, the Afiazu Triad and the Noorah Triad, in York, United Kingdom, regarding the
illegal supply of opioids. The gangs have engaged in various serious organized crimes to
expand and sustain their operations, but they managed to evade government authorities by
coordinating and colluding in their illegal activities while respecting territorial boundaries to
avoid inter-gang turf wars and maintain peaceful relations.
2. Walter White and J. Pinkman are the leaders of the Afiazu Triad, while Tuco Salamanca is
the leader of the Noorah Triad. Pinkman's wife was diagnosed with a terminal and incurable
illness, which left her unable to speak, see, or hear, and she was given a life expectancy of
only one and a half years. Pinkman was distressed by her condition and experienced episodes
of depression. Pinkman devoted himself to caring for her.
3. The police and local politicians launched a coordinated effort to combat the drug supply
gangs, including the Afiazu and Noorah Triads, which led to the creation of a task force
known as the Drug Free York Taskforce (DFYT). By October 2022, DFYT had wiped out
drug routes, kept a close eye on drug operations and had raided 111 storehouses belonging to
the Triads.
4. Amidst difficult times for the triads, credible sources revealed to Walter that the Mexicans
often transgressed into Sicilian territory to sell their product. The stakes were high, but
Walter knew that he had to take drastic action to protect his territory. It was then that Walter
called for a "Turf War" against the Mexicans. Tuco, on the other hand, did not want a full-
blown war, but some of his followers had other ideas, and they made a brazen assassination
attempt on Tuco, leaving him with a neck injury that would never fully heal. Betrayed and
hurt, Tuco turned to drugs for solace, becoming an avid user of Blue Bird, a highly addictive
and dangerous substance that was sweeping the streets of York.

5. At 1:25AM on December 8, 2022, Pinkman summoned Walter to his home as Jane M's
condition had taken a turn for the worse. Upon arriving, Walter realized that Pinkman had
been holed up in his home for an entire month, taking care of his ailing wife whom he loved
dearly. In tears, Pinkman embraced Walter, expressing his frustration and pain, "It's not fair,
Walter! All I wanted was a happy life with Jane."
6. While driving home after consoling Pinkman, Walter spotted Tuco snorting Blue Bird and
appearing to be under the influence in Sicilian territory. He shouted at Tuco, informing him
that he had one chance to leave, failing which he’d face dire consequences.
7. While parked at a signal, loud but indecipherable shouting caught Walter’s attention as to his
surprise, he spotted Tuco across the street, who was snorting Blue Bird and appeared to be
under the influence. It was later testified to by witnesses from both gangs that Walter
stumbled upon Tuco in Sicilian territory.
8. He shouted at Tuco, informing him that he had one chance to leave, failing which he’d face
dire consequences. Tuco in response, sniggered at Walter. He pulled out his knife and
charged at Tuco, shouting, “I will cut you to pieces, and feed you to dogs!”. Tuco, lost in a
Blue Bird induced haze, could only respond with slurred speech and a casual, "Give it your
best shot." This only fueled Walter's rage, and he lunged at Tuco, stabbing him in the
abdomen.
9. Walter seized Tuco by the collar and dragged him into a dark alley. As blood poured from
Tuco's wounds, Walter whispered menacingly, "Welcome to the Slaughter House, my dear
friend." But just as Walter was about to deliver the fatal blow, a sudden epiphany struck him
- perhaps there was another way. Maybe he could save Tuco's life by taking him to the
hospital. Despite this moment of hesitation, Walter walked on. As they walked, Tuco
stumbled over a stone and fell headfirst, suffering a catastrophic neck injury and punctured
intestines. The Blue Bird compound in Tuco's neural stem cells ceased to function.

10. Tuco, fearing for his life, ran towards the main road. While crossing the alley, Walter fired a
shot at him but, due to his poor vision, missed his target and hit an old lamp post instead. The
sound of the gunshot startled Mr. Raajib Ehrmantraut, who was over speeding at 70 MPH on
the road. In a reflex action to protect himself, he drove his car into the same weakened lamp
post, causing it to fall on Tuco and inflict serious head injuries in the form of
intraparenchymal bleeding. Tuco's Mexican mob companions rushed to protect their leader
while Walter's gang rescued him in a car.
11. Tuco was immediately rushed to the nearest hospital at 4 AM, where the neurosurgeon Dr.
Naame, exhausted from the nightshift, she accidentally poked the forceps into Tuco's stab
wound, which worsened his already weakened vertebrae and caused his neural stem cells to
become inoperative and unresponsive. He was resultingly put on life support.
12. At 4:55 AM, Walter and his gang arrived at York City Hospital with the intention of
finishing the job. They turned off the hospital's power supply, which caused Tuco's breathing
to stop, ultimately leading to his demise. Tuco’s post mortem shows 3 grams of Pure Blue
Bird had been circulating in his system.
13. After a few hours, on the other side of town, Jane M. experienced an epileptic seizure. Her
eyes welled up with tears, which triggered a strong emotional response in Pinkman, who was
sitting by her side. His face turned red, and his vision blurred as he lamented, "Why must
God be so cruel to us? We've been wronged by the heavens, the government, and even our
own people." He went on to say, "It would be better for her to pass away than to suffer in
such agony, especially considering all the hardships we've endured together." The memory of
his wife's unexpressed suffering added to his distress. It is alleged that Pinkman that night
injected Jane with Blue Bird in order to put an end to her suffering, causing her to die from
overdose.
14. A neighbor alerted DFYT of the incident when they heard unusual sounds and screams
coming from Pinkman's apartment. The neighbor had moved into the apartment adjacent to
Pinkman's three months before the incident. According to the neighbor, they heard gunshots
near Pinkman's residence and when they looked out of their window and into Pinkman’s,

they saw a thin man pacing around with a gun in his hand for about 30 seconds before
disappearing from their sight. When authorities arrived at Pinkman's residence, they
discovered his apartment door was left open and Jane's lifeless body inside, which was
determined to be caused by an overdose of Blue Bird. Pinkman was located and apprehended
a five-minute walk from the apartment.
15. Pinkman was detained by DFYT, and an identification parade was conducted. During the
parade, the neighbor who reported seeing a man pacing inside Pinkman's residence positively
identified Pinkman. Additionally, authorities obtained CCTV footage from a nearby building
about 30 meters away, which showed a man injecting Jane with a syringe and later pacing
around the apartment.
16. Later, the Police also found Walter and took him in. The prosecution brought charges against
Walter on multiple counts in the Crown Court at York. He was charged for:
a. Common law crime of murder of Tuco
b. Supply of controlled drugs under s.4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971
Whereas, Pinkman was charged for:
a. Common law crime of murder of Jane M.
b. Supply of controlled drugs under s.4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971
Both the accused pleaded not guilty, and hence, a trial took place before the Crown Court at
York.
17. During the trial, Pinkman's neighbor testified as a witness and identified him as the man
pacing in his house and the person seen in the blurry CCTV footage from across Pinkman's
building. The jury was also shown the CCTV footage to identify Pinkman as the person who
injected Jane with opioids.
18. Pinkman contested the neighbor's identification, arguing that they had only recently moved
in, and could not have identified him. He also claimed that the CCTV footage was too blurry
to identify him as the culprit. The judge also noted that the CCTV footage could have been
clearer. Pinkman's defense argued that he had left his apartment to find medicine for Jane

after her epileptic fit, and that the Noorah gang must have entered his residence and injected
Jane as an act of revenge for Tuco's death, especially when they couldn't find Pinkman.
Pinkman's counsel further contended that the evidence of Pinkman's identification was weak
and that the judge should give the jury warning instructions on this matter. At trial, the jury
found Walter and J. Pinkman guilty of all the counts. The judge, Saul J, sentenced Walter and
Pinkman to life imprisonment.
19. Their counsel applied for leave for appeal to the Court of Appeals (Criminal Division) and
has been granted leave for appeal, combining their case, against the decisions of the Crown
Court.

ISSUES RAISED
In relation to Walter:
a. The judge has failed to raise the matter of legal causation, particularly, the issue of
“breaking the chain of causation” before the jury. Walter pleads that the chain of
causation has been broken.
In relation to J.Pinkman:
b. The trial judge did not erred in not issuing the directions to jury (commonly called the
Turnbull Directions) pertaining to the evidence which identified Pinkman as the man
who killed Jane.
c. Even if the there was evidence to prove the commission of the offence, the partial
defense of “Loss of Self Control” should have been available to J. Pinkman, which was
not put forward to the jury.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
causation has not been broken.
Proven from the facts that have been established in our case, Walter is liable for the murder of
Tuco, as he stabbed Tuco and did so intentionally, hence proving the actus reus and mens rea for
murder. The doctor won’t be held liable for murder due to the objective criteria that since
dosctors are overburdened with work and due to public policy reasons, if doctors are held liable
for negligence that are not ‘palpably wrong’ they would stop taking medical cases. Despite
knowing Tuco was on life support, Walter intentionally arrived with his gang and switched off
the hospital’s power supply, resulting in Tuco’s death. There is no intervening act, nor medical
neglignce and the chain of causation is not broken.
who killed Jane.
The identification evidence was strong and reliable, and therefore the Turnbull direction was not
necessary. This argument is supported by the case of R v Bates, where the Court of Appeal held
that a Turnbull direction was not necessary where identification evidence was strong and
reliable.
The prosecution's case did not rely solely on identification evidence, and therefore the Turnbull
direction was not necessary. This argument is supported by the case of R v Davies, where the
Court of Appeal held that a Turnbull direction was not necessary where there was additional
evidence supporting the prosecution's case. The jury had the opportunity to assess the reliability
of the identification evidence through cross-examination and the judge's instructions. This
argument is supported by the case of R v Turnbull, where the Court of Appeal held that the

reliability of identification evidence could be assessed through the judge's instructions and cross-
examination.
The prosecution presented evidence that Pinkman had a motive to commit the crime, and
therefore the Turnbull direction was not necessary. This argument is supported by the case of R
v McLeod1, where the Court of Appeal held that a Turnbull direction was not necessary where
there was evidence of a motive to commit the crime.
Overall, the respondent argues that the Turnbull direction was not necessary in this case because
the identification evidence was strong and reliable, there was additional evidence supporting the
prosecution's case, the jury had the opportunity to assess the reliability of the identification
evidence, and there was evidence of a motive to commit the crime.
c. Even if the there was evidence to prove the commission of the offence, the partial
defense of “Loss of Self Control” should not have been available to J. Pinkman, which
was put forward to the jury.
The respondent hereby states that the partial defense of Loss of self-control will not apply, and
all the qualifying triggers will not satisfy in our case. By his words and his ongoing depression,
he sets a trap to forego the liability of murder. There is no evidence of mercy killing, fear of
serious violence as his wife was already sick and couldn’t have possibly harmed him and there
were no circumstances of grave character. Being an ex-gang member, with a past history of
association with drugs, and weapons and violence, we can say that he wanted to get rid of his
ailing wife and end his suffering by being with her all the time, hence murdered her by injecting
her with an overdose of Bluebird and fleeing the crime scene so as to not to be caught. The jury
shall hold him liable, and the judge shall sentence him to lifetime imprisonment for committing
such a heinous act.
1
R v. McLeod (2009) UKHL 2

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
causation has not been broken.
1. The bare minimum is that the prosecution must show there is a link between a particular
wrongful act of the accused and a criminal harm, such that it is appropriate for the
individual accused rather than, for example, some other person to be held accountable.
2. The actus reus and mens rea have been met in our case as proven by the facts that Walter
not only stabbed Tuco but also intentionally turned of the power supply resulting in his
death. . It must be shown that the D intended to cause ‘really serious injury’ to someone.
In Cunningham (1982),2 D struck his victim on the head a number of times with a chair,
causing injuries from which the victim died a week later. The HOL upheld D’s
conviction for murder: an intent to cause really serious injury is sufficient for murder,
without any proof that the defendant even contemplated the possibility that death would
result. Being an ex-gang member, associated with firearms and drugs, and has been
infamous for his job, therefore, smartly made a safe ground for himself /in order to save
himself from being caught, pretended that he loved his wife, instead we can argue on the
basis of the facts that he was frustrated and his use of words, ‘It would be better for her to
pass away than to suffer in such agony, especially considering all the hardships we've
endured together.’ This Illustrates his motive which he had been thinking since quite a
while now. He will be liable for murder.
3. In White3, D had poisoned his mother’s drink, however she dies of a heart attack before
taking the posion. His conviction for murder was quashed on the basis that the death did
not occur die to the poison. In this case, the heart attack is not independent of the initial
act of the D and so forms the final link in the causal chain. Factual causation is proven
since but for Tuco switching off the power supply, Tuco would not have died. Even
accelerating/increasing the harm will result in a person being the factual cause of such
harm as seen in Dyson, where the defendant was held responsible for the death of a child
from meningitis.4 First Walter stabbed him, then eventually switched off his power
supply and Tuco died, hence he will be accountable for the crime of murder.
4. Legal causation: the prosecution has to prove that the act of the defendant was the
‘substantive and operating cause of the death.’ Usually if there is only one act which led
to the harm being caused, factual and legal causation can be easily proven. In Adams5, a
2
Ashworth's principles of Criminal Law
3
R v Smith [1959] 2QB 35
4
William Wilson, Seventh Edition.
5
R v Adams (1957) 2 QB 282
doctor prescribed a life-threatening dose of drugs for the purpose of pain relief, to a
terminally ill patient. Devlin J told the jury that causation was not established simply
upon proof that measures taken had the effect of accelerating the death, as long as the
doctor was exercising himself to relieve pain and suffering. In Smith6 (1959), the
defendant who stabbed his victim, appealed against his conviction for murder on the
ground that the victim would have survived had he not been dropped several times on the
way to receiving medical treatment and head been properly diagnosed and cared for by
the medical team. The defendant’s conviction for murder was upheld. In both these cases,
the chain was not broken. Hence, since these facts are similar to our case, therefore, the
chain will not be broken and Walter will be liable for the murder of Tuco.
5. In Malcherek7, the Court of Appeal ruled that it was the original attacker who was the
cause of the deceased’s death and not the doctor who has turned off his life support
following brain death. In our case, Walter will be liable since his acts led to Tuco’s death.
6. In Cheshire(1991)8, the deceased died of respiratory failure, the defendant’s contribution

was gunshot wounds to the leg and abdomen, which had left the deceased with
respiratory problems. The doctors performed a tracheotomy, which was negligently
performed and led to the death of the defendant. Nevertheless, this did not exclude the
D’s responsibility ‘unless the negligent treatment was so independent of his acts, and in
itself so potent in causing death that the jury could regard the contribution made by his
acts as insignificant.’ Medical negligence in our case was not palpably wrong, and
Walter’s acts resulted in Tuco’s death.
7. IIn R v. Williams and Davis (1992), the court held that the defendant’s actions were the
direct cause of the victim’s death and that the victim’s intervening act did not break the
chain of causation.
who killed Jane.
1. Even if the Turnbull direction had been required, the judge's failure to give the direction did
not result in any prejudice to J. Pinkman's case. In R v George9, the court held that the
failure to give the Turnbull direction did not result in any prejudice to the defendant, as the
identification evidence against him was so strong that the jury would have reached the same
verdict regardless. Similarly, in this case, the evidence against J. Pinkman was so strong that
6
R v Smith (1959) 2 QB
7
R v Malcherek and Steel (1981) 1 WLR 690
8
R v Cheshire (1991) 2 ALL ER 670
9
R v George [2015] EWCA Crim 43
even if the Turnbull direction had been given, it is unlikely that it would have affected the
outcome of the trial.
2. The Crown's case did not depend solely on identification evidence: The Crown's case
against J. Pinkman was not based solely on identification evidence. Other evidence, such as
his motive, his admission of guilt to Walter White, and his attempt to flee the scene, also
supported the Crown's case. Therefore, the Turnbull directions were not necessary.
3. In R v Hanson10 case sets out the circumstances in which a judge may refuse to give
Turnbull directions. In J. Pinkman's case, the evidence identifying him as the killer was
clear and unambiguous, and the Crown's case did not depend solely on identification
evidence. Therefore, the judge was justified in not giving Turnbull directions.
4. The absence of the Turnbull direction did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court
may consider the impact of the absence of the Turnbull direction on the jury's decision. In R
v McCullagh11, it was held that even if the trial judge failed to give the Turnbull direction,
the court must examine the circumstances of the case and determine if the failure resulted in
a miscarriage of justice.
5. The evidence against J. Pinkman was strong. The court may consider the strength of the
evidence against J. Pinkman in deciding whether the absence of the Turnbull direction
resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In R v Li12 , it was held that even if the trial judge failed
to give the Turnbull direction, the court must examine the strength of the evidence against
the accused in determining whether the failure resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
6. The absence of the Turnbull direction did not prevent J. Pinkman from having a fair trial.
The court may consider the fairness of the trial in deciding whether the absence of the
Turnbull direction resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In R v Quayle and Others13, it was
10
R v Hanson [2005] UKHL 31
11
In R v McCullagh [2002] EWCA Crim 2783
12
R v Li [2009] EWCA Crim 2074
13
R v Quayle and Others [2005] EWCA Crim 1415
held that the absence of the Turnbull direction did not prevent the accused from having a
fair trial.
7. The judge properly considered the need for the Turnbull direction and made a reasonable
decision based on the evidence. In the case of R v Hanson14, the Court of Appeal held that
where the judge has considered the need for the Turnbull direction and made a reasonable
decision based on the evidence, the direction may not be required. In the present case, the
judge made a considered decision not to provide the Turnbull direction, and this decision
was based on the evidence before the court.
c. the partial defense of loss of self control is not available to Mr. Pinkman:
1. Following a review of the defence by the Law Commission, in the Government
Consultation Paper15,the Government set out which parts of the law it proposed to change
and why. These proposals were reflected in the statutory provisions in the Coroners and
Justice Act 200916.
2. Section54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that where a person ('D') kills or
is a party to the killing of another ('V'), D is not to be convicted of murder if
a. D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's
loss of self-control,
b. the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
c. a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint
and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way
to D.
3. Section 55 of the Act is related to the meaning of qualifying triggers as stated in Section
54(1)(b) of the act. Section 55(2) states that A loss of self-control had a qualifying
trigger if subsection (3), (4) or (5) applies.
4. As per the Sec 55(3) of the Act, the subsection applies if D's loss of self-control was
attributable to D's fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.
14
R v Hanson [2005] 2 WLR 709
15
Murder, manslaughter and in infanticide: proposals for law reform (July 2008, CP19/8)
16
Coroners and Justice Act 2009
5. As per the Section 55(4) if D's loss of self-control was attributable to a thing or things
done or said (or both) which—
a) Constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
b) Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
6. As per the Section 55(6), In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying
trigger~
a. D's fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a
thing which D incited to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to
use violence; a sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not
justifiable if D incited the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an
excuse to use violence;
b. In the moot problem, there are no facts that suggest that that Mr. Pinkman had any
kind of fear from his wife. His wife was a terminally ill woman who was unable to
see, speak or hear. It is reasonable to believe that there was no fear of violence from
the victim i.e. Jane. Similarly, there are no facts to suggest that during the trial,
there were any dangerous circumstances that lead Mr. Pinkman to commit such a
heinous crime. Furthermore, Mr. Pinkman had no justifiable sense of being
seriously wronged. His wife suffering from an epileptic seizure, that night, does not
constitutes as Mr. Pinkman being ‘seriously wronged’. He may have shown his
frustration and felt that he was being ‘seriously wronged’ during that time as he was
not able to stop the suffering of his wife but as per Section 55(6), he cannot use that
sense of being seriously wrong for the purpose of providing an excuse to use
violence, in this case, injecting his wife with a fatal dose of Blue bird.
7. In the case of Dawes17, the judgment stated:

“one may wonder how such a defendant may have a justifiable sense of being seriously
wronged if he successfully incites someone else to use violence towards him. Those are
legitimate issues for consideration, but as a matter of statutory construction, the mere
fact that in some general way the defendant was behaving badly and looking for and
provoking trouble does not of itself lead to the disapplication of the qualifying triggers
based on s.55(3)(4) and (5) unless his actions were intended to provide him with the
excuse or opportunity to use violence.”
17
R v Dawes (Carlos) [2003] EWCA Crim 322
8. In the above mentioned case, it was held that the decision in Johnson18 in which the court
had rejected the submission that the mere fact that a defendant caused a reaction in
others, which led him to lose his self-control, should result in the issue of provocation
being outside a jury's consideration, had been decided in the context of the former
provocation defense and no longer fully reflected the appropriate principle. If the
statutory conditions were not met, then loss of self-control should not be left to the jury.
9. Another qualifying trigger that is not met is the reasonableness of the reaction of Mr.
Pinkman. The test for this is whether a person of "a normal degree of tolerance and self-
restraint of the same sex and age as the defendant would have so acted". Even if Mr.
Pinkman was seriously wronged, it still does not justify him reacting in such a manner
that results in violence. Any reasonable man would not have reacted in such a manner.
10. In Goodwin19 the Court of Appeal heard an appeal from a man who had been convicted
of murder, having hit the victim multiple times with a hammer leading to his death. The
judge considered whether the three statutory components of loss of control under
section.54(1)(a)-(c) had been met. The judge found that there was evidence capable of
raising the issue of loss of control under section.54(1)(a). However, he found that there
had been no qualifying trigger under section.54(1)(b) and so it should not be left to the
jury. He also rejected the defense under section.54(1)(c). The jury convicted, and the
accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.
18
R v Johnson (Christopher Richard) [1989] 1 W.L.R 740, [1989] 4 WLUK 222
19
R v Goodwin [2018] EWCA Crim 2287; [2018] 4 W.L.R 165
PRAYER
For the foregoing reason, the appellant respectfully requests this honourable court to find,
adjudicate and declare that:
a. The judge has failed to raise the matter of legal causation, particularly, the issue of “breaking
the chain of causation” before the jury. Walter pleads that the chain of causation has been
broken.
b. The trial judge did not err in not issuing the directions to jury (commonly called the Turnbull
Directions) pertaining to the evidence which identified Pinkman as the man who killed Jane.
c. Even if the there was evidence to prove the commission of the offence, the partial defense of
“Loss of Self Control” should have been available to J. Pinkman, which was not put forward
to the jury.
Respectfully submitted on January 8, 2023

Council for the Respondent

Imc 054R

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Imc 054R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMC-054-RESPONDENT

HONOURABLE COURT OF APPEAL

THE 4TH DLS INTRA MOOT COMPETITION, 2022

WALTER WHITE & J.PINKMAN

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 1

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 2

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 3

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 4

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 5

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 6

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 7

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 8

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 9

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 10

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 11

6. In Cheshire(1991)8, the deceased died of respiratory failure, the defendant’s contribution

7. In the case of Dawes17, the judgment stated:

Respectfully submitted on January 8, 2023

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 18

You might also like