1

English Criminal Law

Dottie, aged 16, has entered a local talent competition called Wow Factor. After a
number of heats, the only competitors remaining are Dottie, Vicky, and William. Three days
before the final, Dottie is rehearsing at the local community hall when she spots the judges
secret score sheet, which has notes on each competitor, lying on top of the piano. Grabbing
the sheet, she quickly stuffs it in her bag, planning to take it to the toilet to read and then later
return it to the piano before anyone notices it is missing. Before she can do this, however,
Vicky enters the hall. Vicky begins to mock Dottie about her singing by screeching loudly
and making croaking noises. When Dottie gets upset, Vicky laughs and says: You dont
stand a chance against me. Apart from sounding like a frog, you also look like one! Dottie,
who is very sensitive, loses her temper, and, grabbing an empty glass bottle that is sitting on
the stage, hits Vicky on the face and neck several times, screaming: Youll pay for that. Lets
see how you do on Saturday after I am finished with you. Vicky collapses on the ground
unconscious.
Dottie runs from the community hall. On her way out she encounters William, who asks
her where she is going in such a hurry. Dottie panics and pushes him hard. He falls on the
ground. An i-pod falls out of his pocket. Thinking this is her own i-pod which William had
failed to return after she loaned it to him the previous week, Dottie takes it. When, on her way
home, Dottie discovers that the i-pod is not hers. She decides to keep it anyway, until William
returns hers.
Vicky is rushed to hospital. When she arrives at hospital, she is in a critical condition.
She receives a number of blood transfusions and stitches for several injuries. However, when
her injuries have almost healed, she contracts an infection. She is prescribed a common antibiotic. However, because the doctor, Dr Kibble, fails to consult Vickys chart, she is unaware
that Vicky is allergic to the drug in question. Vicky experiences a severe allergic reaction and
dies.
After Dottie is arrested, she is sent for psychiatric assessment. She is diagnosed with a
mental disorder which makes it difficult for her to control her conduct in stressful situations.
There is also evidence to suggest that this disorder affected Dotties understanding of the
consequences of her actions at the relevant time.

Assess the Criminal Liability of Dottie and Dr Kibble.

2
Dr Kibble may be liable for the homicide of Vicky.
The actus reus (AR) for homicide is the unlawful killing of a reasonable person who is in
being and under the Kings Peace1. Dr Kibble prescribed Vicky a common anti-biotic she
was allergic to, and which caused her to die.
The mens rea (MR) for murder is acting with malice aforethought. Dr Kibble clearly did not
have any intention to kill Vicky or to cause her grievous bodily harm (GBH), so she is only
liable for involuntary manslaughter.
The next question that arises is whether prescribing this anti-biotic was an unlawful and
dangerous act. To be unlawful an act must be so in a criminal sense2; here Dr Kibble was
accomplishing her duty as a doctor by prescribing an anti-biotic. To be dangerous an act must
be recognised as objectively so, as such as all sober and reasonable person would inevitably
recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom,
albeit not serious harm 3. The anti-biotic Dr Kibble prescribed is a common one; a reasonable
person would not recognise prescribing it as a dangerous act. Her act not being unlawful or
dangerous, Dr Kibble is not liable for constructive manslaughter.
However, she may be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. An objective test of gross
negligence was established in Adomako [1994]4:
-there must be a duty of care owed by the defendant (D) to the victim. As a doctor working in
a hospital, Dr Kibble did owe Vicky a duty of care.
-there must be a gross breach of the duty of care. Here, it is because [she] fail[ed] to consult
Vickys chart that Dr Kibble was unaware that Vicky was allergic to the anti-biotic she
prescribed her. Arguably, Dr Kibble should have consulted the chart before prescribing any
medicine to her patient.
1

Per Lord Cokes definition.

Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163.
3
Church [1966] 1 QB 59, per Edmund-Davies LJ, cited in Michael Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law (10th
Edition, Oxford, 2009) p. 342.
4
Adomako [1994] 1 AC 171.
2

3
-it must be the breach of the duty of care that causes the death. Here, Vickys injuries had
almost healed when she contracted an infection. She may have died if she had not been
prescribed an anti-biotic. However, it is her severe allergic reaction to the specific anti-biotic
she was prescribed to take that caused her to die. Had Dr Kibble realised Vicky was allergic,
she would have administered another anti-biotic, and in all probability Vicky wouldnt have
died.
Dr Kibble may be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. It is for the jury to determine
whether the negligence of her duty of care was so gross that Vicky death amounts to
manslaughter.

The first offence Dottie may be liable for is theft, for taking the score sheet. Theft is
defined in s1(1) of Theft Act 1968.
The AR of theft is appropriat[ing] property belonging to another.
-Section 4(1) defines property as all other property, real or personal, including things in
action and other intangible property. According to Oxford v Moss (1978)5, confidential
information does not amount to property: by reading the judges secret score sheet, Dottie
does not appropriate property. However the score sheet she ends up taking with her is
property.
-Section 5(1) reads: property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession
or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest. The score sheet clearly
belonged to the judge, who had not abandoned it in any way.
-Section 3(1) defines appropriation as any assumption by a person of the rights of an
owner. Dottie here has appropriated the sheet by putting it into her bag.

Oxford v Moss (1978) 68 Cr App R 183.

4
The MR for theft is dishonestly with the intention of permanently depriving the other of
it, and both elements must be met.
-Dottie had planned to return [the sheet] to the piano, so she did not [mean] the other to
permanently to lose the thing itself6; but section 6(1) indicates that she could still have this
part of the MR if [her] intention is to treat the thing as [her] own to dispose of regardless of
the others rights. However Lord Lane CJ stated that the provision is intended to make clear
that a mere borrowing is never enough to constitute the necessary guilty mind g the intention
Is to return the thing in such a changed state that it can truly be said that all its goodness or
virtue has gone.7 So Dottie clearly did not have any intention of permanently depriving the
judge of his score sheet.
-It is clear that Dottie acted dishonestly: her appropriation of the score sheet does not fall
into any of the three situations specified in s2.
On the facts here, Dottie is not liable for the theft of the score sheet because although she
did commit the AR, she does not have the requisite MR as only one of the two criteria is met.
She is not liable for burglary8 either, because she was not a trespasser in the local community
hall.

The next offence Dottie may be liable for is theft, for stealing Williams i-pod. The
elements for theft have been explained above.
As far as the AR is concerned, Williams i-pod is property and it belongs to him. Section 3(1)
of the Theft Act states that appropriation includes, where [D] has come by the property
(innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping it or

Theft Act 1968, s6(1).

Lloyd [1985] QB 829 p. 836, cited in Michael Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law (10th Edition, Oxford, 2009)
p. 473.
8
Theft Act 1968, s9(1).
7

5
dealing with it as owner; so Dottie has appropriated the i-pod by taking it and then deciding
to keep it until William returns hers.
For the MR:
-Section 2(1) clearly states that a persons appropriation of property belonging to another is
not to be regarded as dishonest (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in
law the right to deprive the other of it. At the time when Dottie takes the i-pod, she thinks it
is her own i-pod which William has failed to return after she loaned it to him the previous
week. Believing the i-pod to be hers, she clearly is not acting dishonestly in taking it.
-Dottie decided to keep the i-pod until William returns hers. Although per section 6(1)
Dottie could be said to be assuming Williams rights regarding his i-pod by using it, Lord
Lane CJs statement9 clearly indicates that Dottie did not have any intention of permanently
depriving William of his i-pod.
On the facts here, Dottie is not liable for the theft of the i-pod because although she did
commit the AR, she does not have the requisite MR as only one of the two criteria is met.
Although she used force, as she is not liable for theft she is not liable for robbery10 either.

The next offence Dottie may be liable for is assault occasioning actual bodily harm
(ABH), when she pushed William. This is mentioned in section 47 of the Offences Against
the Person Act (OAPA) 1861.
The AR is common assault or battery resulting in ABH.
-The AR for common assault was defined as when the accused intentionally or recklessly
causes the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence11. It is unclear
whether William has apprehended any violence from Dottie when she suddenly pushed him.

See above.
Theft Act 1968, s8.
11
Savage and Parmentier [1991] 1 AC 699 at 740, cited in Michael Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law (10th
Edition, Oxford, 2009) p. 363.
10

6
-The AR for battery was defined as any intentional touching of another person without the
consent of that person and without legal excuse12. Dottie pushe[d] William hard, hence
committing the AR for battery.
-ABH is defined in Miller [1954] as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health
or comfort of the victim13. William falling to the ground constitutes ABH.
The MR is intention or subjective recklessness to the common assault or battery only.14
-The MR for battery is the intention to apply unlawful force or subjective recklessness as to
whether such force might be applied15. Dottie pushed William because she was panicking
and not by accident.
On the facts here, Dottie is liable for assault occasioning ABH against William because she
committed the AR and has the requisite MR.

The last offence Dottie may be liable for is Vickys murder. The elements for murder
have been explained above16.
As far as the AR is concerned, Dottie hit Vicky on the face and neck several times until she
collapsed on the ground unconscious; when Vicky arrived at hospital, she was in critical
condition. Although she had almost healed, she died from an allergic reaction to an antibiotic. Vicky was indeed unlawfully killed.
However, it can be argued that Vicky only died from her allergic reaction: if the jury decides
Dr Kibble is responsible for Vickys manslaughter, it breaks the chain of causation between
Dotties acts and Vickys death; Dottie may only be liable for GBH with intent.

12

Faulkner v Talbot [1981] 3 All ER 468.

Miller [1954] 2 QB 282 at 292, cited in Michael Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law (10th Edition, Oxford,
2009) p. 387.
14
Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95.
15
Venna [1976] QB 421.
16
See p. 1.
13

7
*If she is liable for Vickys death: as far as the MR is concerned, Dottie told Vicky: Lets
see how you do on Saturday after I am finished with you; she clearly did not mean to kill
Vicky. However, she may have had the intention to cause GBH. She may be liable for
murder.
However, there are two defences for murder: provocation and diminished responsibility.
-The jury must first decide whether she was provoked to lose her self-control: Vicky taunted
Dottie by mocking her and her singing even though she saw Dottie getting upset. As words
can amount to provocation, arguably Dottie has been provoked. The jury must then ask the
objective question of whether a reasonable man would have been provoked to lose his selfcontrol and do as she did. This man may have assaulted Vicky, but probably not caused her
GBH. Although Dottie was diagnosed with a mental disorder, this factor cannot be
attributed to the reasonable man. Dottie cannot be said to have been provoked.
-If Dotties mind at the time was such that her mental responsibility for her acts was
substantially impaired17, she can claim diminished responsibility. Dottie is said to suffer from
a mental disorder which makes it difficult for her to control her conduct and affected [her]
understanding of the consequences of her actions. Her condition seems to have causal
significance on her actions, although this is a matter for the jury to decide.
Dottie may be liable for Vickys murder or her voluntary manslaughter, depending on
the jurys decision.

*If Dottie is not liable for Vickys death, she may be liable for GBH with intent18 or to
wounding or inflicting GBH19.

17

Michael Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law (10th Edition, Oxford, 2009) p. 148.
OAPA 1861, section 18.
19
OAPA 1861, section 20.
18

8
The AR is wounding or causing GBH, where wounding is defined as breaking the skin20.
Vicky is in a critical condition and has received a number of blood transfusions and
stitches: she has clearly been wounded and suffered from GBH.
The MR for GBH with intent is intention or recklessness as to some harm and an ulterior
intent. It is for the jury to determine if Dottie had an ulterior intent. If she did not, she still is
liable for wounding Vicky.
Dottie is at least liable for wounding Vicky, and may be liable for GBH with intent,
depending on the jury.

Dottie can raise the general defence of insanity. There are three conditions to be
satisfied21:
-D must have been suffering from a disease of the mind (and not the brain22).
-Ds disease must have given rise to a defect of reason23.
-as a result of the defect of reason, D must not have know that what he was doing was wrong.
According to the facts, Dottie suffers from a mental disorder which impairs her powers of
reasoning; she did not realise the consequences of her actions at the time.
Another defence Dottie could claim is automatism, a total destruction of voluntary
control24. However Dotties condition only makes it difficult for her to control her acts, and
not impossible.
It is for the jury to decide whether Dottie can claim insanity as a defence. If they decide
she can, she may be convicted with the Special Verdict of not guilty by reason of
insanity25 for anything she may be liable for.
20

Moriarty v Brookes (1834) 6 C & P 684.

MNaghten (1843) 10 Cl & F 200, cited in Michael Allen, ibid. p. 131.
22
Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399.
23
Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219.
24
Attorney-General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91, CA.
25
Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 section 2(1).
21