Assignment:
Question 1.
While walking toward the grocery store one late chilly evening, Carol saw a stranger in the parking lot staring at her. Carol, a petite woman (5′ 3″ and 130 pounds) realized that the stranger was significantly larger (6′ 5″ and 250 pounds). She also noticed that he wore dark clothing, had on a tam and had on a coat with the collar standing up, obscuring much of his face. Carol completed her shopping and walked back out into the parking lot where she again saw the man, standing about 100 feet from her to her left.
She began to walk briskly to her car, parked 100 feet to her right. When she arrived at her car, she looked at the reflection in the car window and noticed that the man was moving quickly toward her. While opening the trunk of her car, Maggie could hear the man mumbling what seemed to her to some foul language incoherently. As shew only 10 fee placed the groceries in the trunk she recalled that her son's baseball bat was in the trunk. She turned around and saw that the man was not away, still walking toward her. When she saw him reach into his pocket, she grabbed the baseball bat, ran towards him, and swung at him, striking him squarely on the side of his head.
A) Should the Judge in this case allow a jury to consider the defence of SELF DEFENCE?
B) Should Carol have retreated when the man began to approach her?
Question 2.
Richard had hired a yacht for the weekend and had gone fishing with his friend Oliver, and Demetrius. The fishing trip had been arranged for the long Commonwealth weekend. When they were some 200 miles out at sea a bad storm suddenly hit. Although it was extremely early in the year for a winter storm, high gusts and choppy seas rocked the boat to and fro eventually causing the boat to capsize and sink. The occupants of the boat managed to swim to a nearby deserted island. Richard had no equipment, clothing, or provisions to survive in this type of environment. The cabin boy had been injured when the boat capsized and was in a weakened state. As the days passed and with no food the men began to entertain the idea of eating the cabin boy who they believed would soon die and because they did not know when or if they would be rescued. The men along with the captain drew straws to determine who would kill the Cabin Boy. Richard drew the long straw and as a result he killed the Cabin Boy and they were able to eat him. Some 2 days later after eating the Cabin boy the men were rescued.
DISCUSS whether Richard can be charged with Murder and if so whether he can successfully rely on the defence of necessity as an excuse for killing the cabin boy.
Question 3.
At his trial for first-degree murder in the killing of his girlfriend, Jeff claimed that he heard voices from God at the time directing Jeff to kill his girlfriend to prevent the world from coming to an end. While he did not want to kill her and knew that it would be illegal, Jeff believed the voices in his head and thought that Armageddon would result if he did not kill her. Jeff raised the insanity defense. The defense expert testified that Jeff attempted to get psychiatric help in the past for his condition, but that all of the doctors had failed in their treatment. This doctor further testified that Jeff's condition could be remedied by a regimen of anti-psychotic drugs. In fact, by the time of the trial, such a program had already succeeded in restoring Jeff to a nearly normal condition.
Since Jeff had been seeing this particular doctor, he no longer suffered from the extreme hallucinations and uncontrollably violent rampages that destroyed his professional and personal life up until the time he killed his girlfriend.
DISCUSS whether the defence of INSANITY could be raised in the above scenario with the use of appropriate case law to justify your response.
QUESTION 4.
The general rule of law is that there can be no liability for failing to act, unless at the time of the failure to act the defendant was under a legal duty to take positive action.
DISCUSS any 4 circumstances in which a defendant will be held to have a positive duty to act using relevant case law to support your answer.
QUESTION 5.
The party injured or killed may have been an unintended victim and the perpetrator may want to argue that he should not be criminally responsible as he did not possess the necessary mensrea.
DISCUSS the principle of TRANSFERRED MALICE with the use of relevant case law.