A3
What did Clyde do to be charged with murder of the second degree?
Clyde punched Brenda twice in the face, so that she fell over with a bleeding nose. Clyde used some force in his punch, leading to Brenda’s falling over. Was this force excessive? It harmed Brenda in such a way that it led to a nosebleed.
Would a normal person have died as a result of such a blow to the nose? Probably not. However, Clyde must have foreseen that his actions could have had serious consequences beyond anyone’s control. Brenda could have hit her head on a sharp stone, and the resulting wound could have led to an infection and her death. It is clear that there is a direct link between Clyde’s actions and Brenda’s death and Clyde must bear responsibility.
229. Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
S.229(a)(ii) makes it clear that one of the requirements of the charge is that the perpetrator meant to cause bodily harm to Brenda, and Clyde fulfilled this requirement when he punched Brenda so hard that she fell over and got a nose bleed, which led to her death. It is a well known fact that causing a wound with bleeding can lead to blood loss and, possibly, infection with ire consequences as in this case.
It is further clear that Clyde fulfilled a second requirement of the charge against him, namely recklessness. When Clyde consumed one full bottle of brandy against medical advice that such a move would lead to disorientation and erratic behaviour, he ought to have known that this would lead him to lose control. Therefore, he is fully responsible for his actions and the consequences. The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled that self-induced intoxication is no excuse and can therefore not be used as defense. In R. v. Daviault, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered that a verdict of guilty be entered. It held that the defence of self induced intoxication resulting in a state equal to or akin to automatism or insanity is not available as a defence to a general intent offence.
A4
S.222
(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(a) by means of an unlawful act;
When a person commits an unlawful act that leads directly to the death of another person, that person must be found guilty of manslaughter. This is not the case here. Amir did commit an unlawful act, the act of stealing two vials of what he assumed to be performance enhancing drugs. It is this act of ignorance of Brenda’s medical condition that contributed to Brenda’s death, but there was no intent on Amir’s part to kill Brenda. It is clear to establish a direct link between the unlawful action of the perpetrator and his victim. This cannot be done here as it was impossible for Amir to foresee that Clyde would lose control and punch Brenda in such a way that she would require her medication. There is no reasonable link to be drawn between two vials containing an unknown liquid and Clyde’s punches. The actions of Amir and Clyde cannot be compared and have not been committed in concert. Neither action should have led to Brenda’s death had it not been for a combination of unforeseen circumstances.
I would therefore advise Amir not to plead guilty.
