1.

Parties Involved

1. The defendant is Alan as the Principal Offender when he is the main character that
wanted to frighten his neighbour.
2. The neighbour is Bel as the innocent agent
3. Cad is the firecrackers seller as the secondary party in this crime.
4. The ambulance’s driver was the innocent party that was not involved in the crime.
5. The Bel’s Parents, Dean and Eli are the actual victims of being killed and affected.

2. Factual issue

Alan as Principal Offender had a plan to frighten his neighbour, Bel so he decided to buy
the firecracker from Cad’s shop and told Cad that he wanted to have fun with his neighbour
during a long weekend. From there, Cad had given an extra strong ‘dragon firecracker’ to Alan.
The defendant, consuming a few glasses of liquor, lit the strong firecracker and threw it into
Bel’s window since it fell on the curtain and immediately caught fire . In fact, Bel was not at
home but his aged parents were in his home. Because of the fire, the kitchen area was severely
damaged in half. Due to the intense fumes and suffocation, Dean and Eli discovered that the
actual victims were discovered unconscious.
Dean was transported in an ambulance that was negligently operated and involved in an
accident, he had already died when arrived at the hospital and due to a mechanical issue that
needed to be fixed, Eli was 30 minutes late to the hospital. She was brought in for treatment in
the ICU. She was told that her life would be saved by a blood transfusion. However, she refused
and died three days later as a result of her religious convictions. During the investigation, Alan
admitted throwing the firecracker at Bel's house but said he didn't intend to kill anyone or
damage the house.

2
3. Three (3) legal issues:

1. Whether Alan is liable for arson under intoxication defence.

4. Rules & Application

● Legal issue 1
Whether Alan is liable for arson under intoxication defence.

● Rules

The rule that we apply in determining whether the defendant is liable for arson
under intoxication defence , is same used in the case law of R v Majewski [1977] AC
433. Arson falls under the category crimes of specific intent which requires intent or
mens rea of the defendant. The rules is the intoxication defence can only be applied in
crimes of specific intent which the defendant lacks of mens rea at the time he
committing the crime. In this case, the defendant was found guilty after he assaulted the
landlord, the arresting police, police officer and police inspector because of substantial
drugs which he had taken over a 48 hour period. Hence, he was charged with causing
grievous bodily harm to the victims and he asserted that he lacks mens rea when he
committed the crime as well as because of his intoxicated state. Nevertheless, he was
found guilty for common assault because intoxication only can be used in crimes of
specific intent.

3
 ● Application

Alan’s action had caused damage to Bel’s house. Therefore, we apply the case of
R v Majewski [1977] AC 433 as both cases apply the same rules in order to solve the
issue. In this case, Alan intentionally lit the dragon firecracker and caused damage to the
Bel’s property as well as harm to his parents. Since arson is a crime of specific intent, the
offence can only be committed intentionally. However, the intoxication defence can only
be applied when the defendant lacks mens rea at the time he is committing the crime. In
this case, Alan already had a plan to have fun with his neighbour and he threw the
firecracker after he consumed a few glasses of liquor and the risk also was foreseeable.
Arson falls under the category crimes of specific intent which requires mens [Link]
conclusion, Alan will be found guilty of arson and intoxication gave him no defence
since he has the mens rea to throw the firecracker.

● Legal issue 2
Whether the hospital can be charged with criminal negligence which is manslaughter.

● Rules

The rules that can be applied in order to solve this legal issue, is based on the case
law of R v Adomako [1994] 3 WLR 288. The rule is that manslaughter does not
require mens rea of the defendant but he had committed an offence. In order for the
defendant to be liable, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had breached
the duty of care to the plaintiff which led to death. In this case, the appellant failed to
notice that the oxygen pipe became disconnected which caused death to the respondent.
Hence, it was held that the appellant was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter
because he owed the duty of care to the respondent. In determining the criminal liability
of the appellant, the judge would rely on the objective test which asks what the
reasonable or sober man would have done in the defendant position. It was clearly found
that the reasonable man would have tried to avoid the harm to the respondent.

4
 ● Application

We apply the same rule that had been used by case law of R v Adomako [1994] 3
WLR 288 in order to solve the issue, whether the hospital can be charged with criminal
negligence which is manslaughter. Therefore, we apply this case law to determine the
existence of mens rea of the defendant for the criminal negligence. Although the driver
lacks mens rea, he owed the duty of care to bring Dean safely to the hospital. In a
nutshell, the hospital will be guilty for the death of Dean because the driver ignores
the risk and causes harm to Dean.

● Legal issue 3
Whether Alan can be charged with transferred malice in common assault.

● Rules

The rules that can be applied are based on the cases of R v Latimer (1886). The
rule is the transferred malice can be applied where the mens rea of an offence can be
transmitted to another. The mens rea to cause harm to the intended victim could be
transferred to actual victim and the defendant will be guilty because he still has the mens
rea to commit the offence. However, the doctrine of transferred malice could not be
applied in different crimes. In the case R v Latimer (1886), the defendant, Latimer,
swung his belt at person A but injured the victim after he had a fight with A. Hence, he
was charged with unlawful wounding but he asserted he unintentionally caused harm to
the victim. However, he was found guilty of the offence of assault because he has
transferred his mens rea to cause harm to A to the actual victim. In addition, the risk was
foreseeable to harm the victim.

● Application

5
 Alan’s action that threw the firecracker to Bel’s house had cause Bel’s house to catch
fire. From Alan’s action, we must establish that whether Alan can be charged with
transferred malice in common assault. To solve the legal issue, we referred the case of R
v Latimer (1886). In applying the rule to this case, Alan will also be guilty
because he had mens rea when he threw the firecracker because he thought that Bel was
inside the house watching television. It clearly showed that he knew what he was doing
although he was in an intoxicated state and there would be harm caused to Bel and his
family. Therefore in this scenario, Alan has transferred the mens rea from Bel to his aged
parents. In conclusion, he will be guilty of assault because the actus reus of the offence
is the same and he has the intention to assault the victim.

● Legal Issue (4)

● Rules

The rules that can be applied to these circumstances are based on the case of R v
Cogan and Leak [1976] QB 217. The rule is a person who commits the crime must
lack a mens rea, to make them not liable for the offences. In this case, after a night of
drinking, Mr Leak came home and told his wife that he was going to allow Cogan to have
sex with her. Mr Leak then proceeded to have sex with his wife, then allowed Cogan to
have sex with her. Mr Leak’s wife called the police who charged Cogan with rape. Cogan
was acquitted of rape charges because he thought that Leak’s wife consented to the sexual
intercourse and Cogan did not have any intention to rape Leak’s wife so Cogan is an
innocent agent in that case and Leak was charged with aiding and abetting rape because
Mr Leak’s wife was raped due to Leak’s desire to have his wife raped.

● Application

6
 Cad is the one who was selling the firecrackers to Alan that caused Bel’s house to
catch fire and his grandparents died. From Cad’s action, we must establish whether Cad
will be charged as an innocent agent. To know whether or not Cad is an innocent agent in
this case by referring to the case of R v Cogan and Leak [1976] QB 217. We apply that
rule into this case where Cad sells the extra strong firecracker ‘dragon firecracker’ to
Alan after being excited with Alan’s idea that Alan wanted to have fun during a long
weekend with his neighbour. But actually Alan’s plan is to frighten Bel’s house and cause
Bel’s house to catch fire. In this case, Cad will be an innocent agent because he lacks the
mens rea or intention to burn Bel’s house and cause Bel’s grandparent to die. In short,
Cad is an innocent agent in this case and he will not be liable for the offence.

5. Defences

The party that is relevant to get the necessity defence and not liable for their
offence is the hospital because in this case the hospital has the intention to treat Eli with
a blood transfusion to save her life, but she did not want to accept it due to her religious
beliefs and she died after three days. From this, we can see that hospital is not the cause
of Eli’s death. We can refer to judgement from the case Re A (conjoined twins) [2001] 2
WLR 480 stated that the doctor could lawfully carry out the operation for sure it would
be lawful and in the best interests of the conjoined twins to operate and caused a
relatively normal life and would prevent further suffering to M as J grew even though the
parents refused consent for the operation to separate them. To conclude, the hospital is
not liable for Eli’s death.

The party that is relevant to get the defence and not liable for the offences is Cad
who is a person who sells firecrackers to Alan. Cad can defend himself by using the
defence of a mistake of fact. Mistake of fact arises when the accused misunderstood
some fact that negates an element of crime. In addition, with this defence a person can

7
escape criminal liability where such an act of person occurs as a result of mistake of
facts. It is a condition that such a mistake must pertain to fact not law. In this case, Cad
thinks Alan seriously wants to have fun with his neighbour during a weekend and does
not know about the intention of Alan to frighten Bel. It shows that Cad genuinely does
not know about the intention of Alan because Alan tries to deceive the facts about his
intentions. Referring to statutes, section 76 and 79 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) about
the mistake must be of fact and not of law. The legal maxim, "ignorantia facti excusati
ignorantia juris non excusat" which means ignorance of fact is an excuse, but ignorance
of law is no excuse. So it is a basic requirement to get the defence that the mistake must
be of fact. Next, we also referred to the case of R v Lee [2000] EWCA Crim 53 Court of
Appeal where the appellant had failed a breath test. He looked at the test result and saw
an air bubble which pushed the test over the limit. When the officer tried to arrest him for
drunk driving the appellant punched him. He was convicted of assaulting a police officer
with intent to resist arrest under s.38 Offence Against the Person Act 1861. He appealed
contending that he had a genuine belief that the arrest was unlawful. It was held that the
mistake was one of law and therefore was of no defence. From this, we believe that Cad
is the one that is eligible to get the defence of a mistake because the mistake was on the
facts and he will not be liable for the destruction of Bel’s house and the death of Bel’s
grandfather.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, after applying statutes and consulting precedent cases to find the
solution to the case, we believe that Alan is the sole defendant and is ineligible to raise
any defences because he had mens rea at the time of the crime . Although it was just for
Bel, it had an impact on his parents, and he was found to be responsible for their death.
On the other hand, Cad was not found guilty because he was liable to use defence
mistakes of facts as there is a mistake on the fact where Alan said to Cad that he only
wanted to join the long weekend with his neighbour by playing firecrackers. Unexpected
plot twist, Cad did not know the truest Alan’s intention, that Alan wanted to frighten his