Crime XXXXX - Constructive Manslaughter IX– The Unlawful Act VIII
In
R v Watson (1989) the defendant threw a brick through the glass window of the
victim’s home. The victim was aged and elderly and seriously ill at the time.
The defendant unaware of the victim’s condition entered the house and stumbled
across the victim.
The
defendant was in the house for about 90 minutes during which time the victim
was verbally abused. Once the defendant had left the house, the victim
collapsed and died. The defendant was charged with burglary under section s.9
(1) (a) of the Theft Act 1968.
S
9 of the theft act defines burglary and reads as follows: -
(1) A
person is guilty of burglary if—
(a) he
enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to
commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or
(b) having
entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or
attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or
attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.
(2) The
offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing
anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on
any person therein any grievous bodily harm ... therein, and of doing
unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
(3) A
person guilty of burglary shall on conviction on indictment be liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding—
(a) where
the offence was committed in respect of a building or part of a building which
is a dwelling, fourteen years;
(b)in
any other case, ten years.
(4) References
in subsections (1) and (2) above to a building, and the reference in subsection
(3) above to a building which is a dwelling, shall apply also to an inhabited
vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to any such vehicle or vessel at times when
the person having a habitation in it is not there as well as at times when he
is.
The
defendant was also convicted for constructive manslaughter or unlawful act
manslaughter. The defendant appealed.
The
conviction for constructive manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter was
quashed on the grounds of a misdirection. The issue was raised after the jury
had retired and the defendant was not given the opportunity to address the
issue.
Had
the defendant been given the opportunity to address the issue would the
conviction have stood or would it have been deemed sound?
1) Could a reasonable person have gauged the victim’s age just by looking at him and
having done so would he have verbally abused him? It is not unreasonable to say
with some degree of certainty that most elderly people would suffer from some
sickness or other. The older the person the higher the chances that he or she
is suffering from some sort of an illness that if aggravated could prove fatal.
2)
Should the thin skull rule apply i.e. should the defendant take the victim as
he or she finds them?
3)
It is also worth pointing out that death, like in R v Dawson (1985), did not
result from a physical injury but from a pre-existing medical condition.
4)
The defendant had already been tried and convicted of one offence and an
additional conviction for constructive manslaughter would only serve to
lengthen the sentence but we have to keep in mind that sentences can either run
concurrently i.e. two sentences can run together at the same time or
consecutively i.e. one after the other.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment