Podcast: the Ugly
Martin and Ben both collected antique books. Martin was jealous of Ben because Ben’s collection was larger and contained some very rare books. So one night, intending to destroy Ben’s books he pushed some lighted petrol-soaked rags through what he thought was the study window of Ben’s house. In fact, it was the living room window. The contents of the living room were destroyed. Martin believed that Ben was in the house but in fact the house was unoccupied.
Discuss Martin’s criminal liability.
How would your answer differ if Ben had been in the house in bed and, woken by the smell of smoke, had jumped from the bedroom window and died from the injuries sustained when he hit the ground.
Podcast: the Ugly
Martin is guilty of setting fire to Ben’s house. This is arson – a serious offence in the Criminal Damage Act. (1) The offence is not clearly identified. He set fire to the house and damaged the contents of the house. In fact, he probably destroyed some property because he used petrol-soaked rags and pushed them through the window. (2) No marks are awarded for repeating the facts of the question. Books are property and they belonged to another (Ben). This is the actus reus of the offence. (3) There is no reference in the answer to the definition of the offence or its actus reus and mens rea components. He had the mens rea because he wanted to set fire to the books. He intended to damage property. (3) There is no reference in the answer to the definition of the offence or its actus reus and mens rea components. He did so because he was jealous of Ben because his collection was larger and contained some very rare books. (2) No marks are awarded for repeating the facts of the question. His motive is irrelevant (can’t remember case name). But he did not destroy the books. He pushed the lighted rags through the living room window and destroyed the furniture. (4) The writer now realises that they have misread the facts. Read the question carefully before writing the answer. This is transferred malice (Latimer). In Pembleton the offences were different (broke a window when trying to hit someone) and so transferred malice did not apply. Here they are the same – criminal damage and criminal damage. (5) Poor explanation.
Fortunately for Martin he would get off a charge of dangerous damage as he did not intend to cause Ben to have his life endangered. But he should of known that someone might of been in the house and so he may be guilty. (6) Take care with language. The passage should read 'But he should have known' This is a question for the jury. Ignorance of the law is no defence.
Martin is also guilty of murder (Moloney). This is the most serious offence known. He killed a human being in the queen’s peace. Ben jumped from the window because he could smell smoke. (2) No marks are awarded for repeating the facts of the question. That is a natural human reaction and you must take your victim as you find him (Blaue – the Jehovah’s witness case). (7) Blaue is not directly relevant to the facts. Unfortunately Ben has died! Martin had oblique intent and so the mens rea (malice aforethought) is definitely proved (Woollin – the defendant threw a baby onto the ground and killed it. He was guilty.) In Hyam a woman set fire to a house because she was annoyed that her boyfriend was having an affair with someone else and she was guilty of murder. She knew that someone would probably die. It is no excuse that you have been jilted. (8) There is no explanation of the principle in Hyam nor its relevance. In any case, Hyam is a relatively old case and no longer authoritative.
He is also guilty of manslaughter as he should have known that what he was doing was dangerous (Church). (9) One cannot be guilty of both murder and manslaughter in respect of the same facts. The jury are unlikely to believe him if he says he did not know that fire could kill or that he lost self-control. This is a new defence and reduces his liability to manslaughter (Coroners Act). But he is unlikely to succeed as a jury would not regard setting fire to someone’s house as a reasonable thing to do. (11) There is no evidence that Martin had lost his self-control. Only discuss those defences that are raised by the facts of the question.
If Martin was below the age of 10 he would not be responsible for his actions (Young Children Act). (12) This is daft. There is no suggestion that he is a child; the fact that he is a book collector would imply that he is an adult.
He had no lawful excuse for damaging property (Criminal Damage Act) as Ben did not consent to his house being set on fire. And he did not do it to protect someone’s life. In fact he killed someone. (13) This point – were it relevant – should have been mentioned as part of the discussion of Martin's liability for an offence of criminal damage contrary to s1(1) of the CDA 1971.