ID: A95335

Criminal Law
Question 3
Word count: 2,108

Ogla.

Murder.
Ogla’s act of suffocating Liam into a state of unconsciousness is a novus actus intervenient to
prevent Patty from being liable for Liam’s death from sending the bomb letter. She has
murdered Liam, and as a result, is most likely to be liable by the prosecution. Murder is the
unlawful killing of a person under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought. In this
scenario, Patty is motivated by her grudge against Liam and as a result, sends him a letter
bomb to kill no one other than him. Rendering the facts, Patty has unlawfully acted under the
Queen’s peace against Liam1, a person2. However, Ogla then suffocates Liam with a pillow
into a permanent state of unconsciousness which remains until the doctors remove the life
support. Both Ogla and Patty are unaware of each other’s actions towards Liam, so they do
not satisfy being a conspiracy. For the actus reus, the two-step test for causation is applied.
This was phrased as the ‘but for’ test by the court in R v White3 in which ‘but for’ the
defendant’s actions, the result would not have occurred. ‘But for’ Patty sending Liam the
letter bomb, Liam would still have died. Using White, it is not sufficient that this is the
factual cause of Liam’s death. In determining the legal causation, Patty’s actions are
determined based on whether it is substantial, blameworthy and operable. In applying R v L
[2010], her action would be considered as more than trifling. Arguably, it could be said that a
contribution was made by sending a letter bomb, albeit to not playing the prime role in
Liam’s death, it caused property damages. It seems likely that her actions could be a potential
legal cause. Blameworthiness would be found by sending a letter bomb to Liam as this was
wrongful conduct that would undeniably lead to fatal results. To decide whether her action
was operable, the question is whether it was voluntary and whether Ogla had broken the
chain of causation. Following Kennedy (No.2), Liam was given a choice on opening the letter

1
R v Adebolajo [2014] EWCA Crim 2779.
2
Handley (1874) 13 Cox CC 79.
3
[1910] 2 KB 124.
bomb, however, this would be undermined by him not being informed of what the letter
consisted of before having it in his possession.

However, the third party intervention of Ogla is a novus actus intervenient (an act Patty had
no control over). Ogla’s action was unforeseeable by Patty but may have been foreseeable for
a reasonable person. Following R v Smith4, the operable cause of death would not be the
letter bomb, but instead would most likely be Ogla’s acts of suffocating Liam as those
consequences resulted in his state of unconsciousness by which the doctors could have had no
intervention, and thus did not break the chain of causation, which would make Ogla liable.

The doctors’ act of removing the life support on Liam does not break the chain of causation,
for Liam was already clinically dead. Doctors are a defence to murder and can raise a
sufficient defence for their actions, making them least chargeable for murder. In R v
Malcherek and Steel5, a victim of severe grievous bodily harm was placed on life support
machine in the hospital in which the doctors turned the machine off. It was held that the brain
was already dead and so the doctors’ actions could not be the cause of death. The actus reus
of the doctors satisfies murder by removing the life support, following the mens rea of
satisfying murder as shortening life is a virtually certain consequence of conduct and
knowledge which is likely to equal to an oblique intention to kill. If the facts were applied to
this case, Ogla’s attempt to murder Liam where she “places a pillow over Liam’s face”, in
consequence, left Liam unconscious and in a vegetative state until under the care of the
hospital with “a week on life support”. Lord Goff’s obiter in Bland6 further connotes this as
“a doctor may, when caring for a patient […] lawfully administer painkilling drugs, despite
the fact he knows that an incidental effect of that application will abbreviate the patient’s
life”. Therefore, medical intervention is allowed and does not constitute the murder of Liam
as it does not break the chain of causation. It is therefore conclusive that Patty’s letter bomb
is no longer the substantial and operating cause towards Liam’s death, and that Patty had
committed under the Queen’s peace, against a person. However, it is not unlawful that the
actus reus elements were not all satisfied, Patty’s mens rea and defences need not be
scrutinised with the murder of Liam. It is most likely that Patty will not be responsible for the
death of Liam.

4
[1956] 2 QB 35.
5
[1981] 1 WLR 690.
6
[1993] AC 789.
Now that it has been established that the prosecution is likely to have found Ogla guilty of
unlawfully killing a person under the Queen’s peace, it must also be demonstrated that Ogla
had the mens rea for the murder of Liam. Under Coke’s definition of murder, it follows that
the defendant must have the “intention to kill” “with malice aforethought”, which in modern
translation as provided by Moloney [1985]7 as having an intention. Ogla had clarified her
direct intention to kill by expressing her motives and own reasons for wanting Liam dead (to
inherit Liam’s wealth). As a result, Patty has no defence to liability. She has unlawfully killed
a person under the Queen’s peace and the most likely result is that she is liable for the murder
of Liam by which she could face fifteen years of imprisonment.

Patty.

Criminal Damage.
In sending a letter bomb, Patty had damaged property that belonged to another person. This
would satisfy the actus reus of criminal damage. Criminal damage is defined under s1(1) of
the Criminal Damages Act (1971)8 as, “a person who without lawful excuse destroys or
damages property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or
being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged”. The mens
rea required in this offence is the defendant intended to damage or be reckless. While Patty
destroying Liam’s curtains was of indirect intent, there is a likelihood that Patty would have
had the awareness of the possible damage to property that could have occurred when sending
the letter bomb and would thus have been reckless to the offence. She was reckless as she did
not have the foresight that it would impact anyone or anything else before she sent it. To use
self-defence as a lawful excuse would also be difficult to take and it is therefore likely that
Patty would be charged for criminal damages.

Attempt.
It is feasible that the prosecution will hold Patty criminally liable for attempted murder under
the Criminal Attempts Act (1981)9. In establishing this, the prosecution must have found
Patty attempt the murder of Liam under s1(1) of the CAA (1981)10 as Patty, “with intent to
7
AC 905.
8
Criminal Damages Act (1971), s1(1).
9
Criminal Attempts Act (1981).
10
Criminal Attempts Act (1981), s1(1).
commit an offence[…]does an act which is more than merely preparatory”. The letter bomb
was “more than merely preparatory” to committing the offence. ‘But for’ Patty sending the
letter bomb, her liability for attempt would be excluded. The factual causation is met.
Through Jones [1990], it was stated that “the intention of killing[…] was sufficient evidence
for the consideration of the jury on the chance of attempted murder”. This means that
condoning attempted murder is not decided by how substantial her action was, but decided
merely on intention and the preparation involved. The jury would possibly hold Patty liable
based on the ‘sufficient evidence’ given. If the letter bomb had not reached Liam’s house or
exploded, then following the judgment made in Geddes [1996]11 and Patty would not be held
liable. While it may be a factual impossibility that Liam never actually opened the letter
bomb which was intended to kill him and that it was faulty minimises the possibility of him
being killed by it, Patty would, regardless, still be made liable by s1(2) CAA (1981)12. Patty
had displayed this by her “grudges” as motivation in her decision “to kill him”. The courts
and jury may interpret this by the Pace and Roger13 approach whereby an intention as to both
the consequence elements and the circumstance elements is required. After considering the
facts, the circumstance element is her grudge and the consequence element is to kill. S1(1)
CAA (1981)14 provides the ulterior mens rea as the defendant required to act “with intent to
commit an offence”. This means that the defendant acts intending to complete the principal
offence. Looking at the facts, Patty acting with the intent to kill Liam due to her grudge could
be ‘sufficient evidence’ and the very likely outcome is that Patty will be liable for the
attempted murder of Liam.

Grievous Bodily Harm.

Patty’s letter bomb explosion hit Ogla’s face, causing “severe burn injuries”. Patty caused
unlawful grievous bodily harm to Ogla. Patty did not know of this occurring, her desired
result was to kill Liam. The injuries sustained are permanent wounding and would result in a
lengthy treatment. It would thus meet the interpretation given by the House of Lords in DPP
v Smith15 as “really serious bodily harm”. It would also satisfy the requirement of s.20 of the
Offences Against the Person Act (1861)16, that whoever causes “any grievous bodily harm to

11
Crim LR 894.
12
Criminal Attempts Act (1981), s1(2).
13
[2014] EWCA Crim 186.
14
(N 9).
15
[1961] AC 290.
16
Offences Against the Person Act (1861), s 20.
any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person” is guilty of the
offence17. ‘But for’ Patty sending the letter bomb, Ogla would not sustain burn injuries. There
is no evidence of any other factors as being the factual cause of Patty’s harm. Factual
causation appears to be satisfied. Patty’s actions were not at de minimus, Ogla endured
injuries that resulted in her going to the hospital. Per R v L 18, her actions were more than
negligible despite thinking that “no one else will be harmed”. In determining the
blameworthiness of Patty’s actions, her actions must be wrongful which lead to a harmful
result. Patty’s act of sending a letter bomb alone exasperates a disastrous outcome. Her
unlawful grievous bodily harm of Ogla would make her blameworthy. If established, Ogla’s
actions would be operable if it were voluntary. Ogla’s actions were not voluntary. Liam had
dropped the letter bomb Patty had sent him as she was suffocating him. She was not informed
and had no control of the damage performed unto her. Patty is the ‘but for’ cause of Ogla’s
grievous bodily harm. Moreover, this chain of causation is not broken. It can, therefore, be
concluded that Patty’s letter bomb may establish the substantial and operating cause towards
Ogla’s grievous bodily harm and that Patty would most likely be made accountable under
s.20 OATPA (1861)19. It is unlawful as the actus reus elements were satisfied, Patty’s mens
rea requires scrutinising. Patty satisfies the mens rea element; foresight of the risk of some
harm (intention or recklessness as to some bodily harm). Patty was acting maliciously and
should have intended to foresee some kind of harm (per Diplock LJ in Mowatt20). The facts
show that Patty had aimed for the bomb letter to murder Liam, a kind of harm, albeit it
injuring Ogla. The test for recklessness is also satisfied in this, as established by R v
Cunningham21; that the defendant was aware that “a deliberate act”22 would cause a particular
result and that the defendant’s risk taken was unjustifiable. The mens rea for grievous bodily
harm is satisfied. Patty would likely be made liable for the grievous bodily harm sustained by
Ogla by Liam pushing over Patty’s bomb letter and, by s2023, charged with imprisonment for
life.

Conclusion:

17
Ibid.
18
[2010] EWCA Crim 1249.
19
(n 16).
20
[1968] 1QB 421.
21
[1957] 2 QB 396.
22
R v Parker [1977] 2 All ER 37.
23
(n 16).
On the facts, Ogla would likely be liable for the murder of Liam as her actions and intention
to satisfy the required elements for the liability of murder, as opposed to Patty. It is unlikely
that there would be a defence to excuse her conduct and could face fifteen years of life
imprisonment. Specifically, given the level of destruction caused by Patty, she would most
likely be liable for criminal damages, the grievous bodily harm of Ogla and the attempted
murder of Liam. If convicted, Patty may be liable up to life imprisonment and even a fine. It
is also unlikely that the doctors cannot be made liable or charged for the death of Liam, after
the life support removal of Liam.