Read Law Right

As promised in the previous post, here is a simple example of the IRAC approach to problem-style questions with a straightforward homicide scenario. The question here is much less complicated than any you will encounter in an exam or assignment.

Students very often purport to use the IRAC approach when answering problem-style questions, but their submissions show up in a simplistic four-heading structure, i.e. the essay has a heading for Issues, where all the issues in the scenario are identified, then a heading for Rules where legal rules are identified and discussed, then a heading for Application, which often leads to repetition from the Rules section, and finally a Conclusion where an opinion is proffered on the ultimate answer. This is not how the IRAC approach should be used.*

*see, for example, Finch & Fafinsky, Legal Skills (6th ed, OUP 2017) at 15.2.1

Assumptions for this post:

• In a real-life assignment, you will go into more detail explaining and applying the law than I have here.
• You would explain in more detail how your sources support the points you are making.
• You won’t use the headings for Issue/Rule/Application/Conclusion. I have used them here only for clarity.
• As such, this isn’t an example to treat as best practice for an assignment answer. I really am just dealing with one point about structure here.

I will follow up this post with another that answers a more realistically complicated scenario and question.

Question

Xander confronted Jonathan and was heard to say to Jonathan, “I’m going to break every bone in your body.” He proceeded to thump Jonathan until he fell to the ground. Then he kicked him multiple times to the body and head. Jonathan was taken to hospital, however his injuries were too severe and he died before any meaningful treatment could start. Xander admits attacking Jonathon but denies murder on the basis he did not intend to kill Jonathan.

Advise Xander on his liability for murder according to the law of England & Wales.

Dear Xander Harris,

Thank you for consulting me for legal advice on your upcoming trial for murder. I regret to inform you that in my opinion it is very likely that you will be convicted.

Issue

In order to successfully convict you, the prosecution will have to convince the jury, so that they are sure,[1] that you unlawfully killed a person in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought.[2] That is the definition of murder in England & Wales.

The prosecution must prove every element in that definition. As defendant, you would only have to raise sufficient doubt over one element and the jury would have to acquit you. However, as I explain below, I believe it is unlikely that you will be able to do that.

I will explain each element of the offence for you.

Unlawfully

Rule

The killing must be unlawful, which implies there is potential for lawful killing.[3] The most common argument here would be self-defence – i.e. that you attacked Jonathan in self-defence because you genuinely believed he was attacking or about to attack you, and you used no more force than was necessary to resist his actions.[4]

Application

However, the facts of your case do not reveal any obvious justifications for your attack on Jonathan.

Conclusion

Absent any evidence of this nature, it appears that Jonathan’s killing was unlawful.

Killed

Rule

The prosecution must prove that it was your actions that killed Jonathan. The law refers to this as causation and the prosecution will have to prove that Jonathan would (a) not have died ‘but for’ your actions,[5] and (b) that you are legally culpable for his death.[6]

Application

Given that you admit you carried out the attack and with the absence of any intervening actions of third-parties, it is likely that the jury will accept that it was your actions that caused Jonathan’s death.

Conclusion

He would not have been injured ‘but for’ your attack, and there are no facts that would disturb your being legally culpable for his injuries and death.

A person in being

Rule

The law here focuses on those at the very start and very end of their lives, e.g. a baby must be fully born and expelled from the mother before it is a ‘person in being’.[7] If life-support is withdrawn from a person who medically has no chance of recovery, switching off the life-support is not homicide.[8]

Application/Conclusion

No such issue arises in your case.

Under the King’s peace

Rule

This odd phrase refers to the jurisdiction of the King’s courts and is nothing to do with whether the killing is carried out in wartime.[9]

Application/Conclusion

As such this element of the crime does not appear to be in issue here, so long as the offence was carried out within the jurisdiction of the courts of England & Wales.

With malice aforethought

Rule

In plain English, that at or just before the time you attacked Jonathan you intended either to kill[10] Jonathan or cause him very serious harm.[11] This means a person can be convicted for murder who genuinely did not intend death as a result of his actions.

Application

You argue that you did not intend to kill Jonathan and it is unlikely that the prosecution will attempt to argue that you did. However this is irrelevant if you intended him serious harm and he died as a result. That would still be murder. There is evidence that you threatened to ‘break every bone in his body’.

Conclusion

The jury would very likely accept that such injuries would qualify as really serious harm and that was therefore your intention when you attacked him.

Intention

Rule

You may also be uncertain what the word ‘intention’ means in this context. Intention can be proven in two ways, which we call ‘direct intention’ and ‘oblique intention’.

Direct intention is where it was your “aim or purpose” either to kill or to seriously harm Jonathan.[12]

Oblique intention arises where you neither intended to kill nor to cause serious harm, but nevertheless your actions were “virtually certain” to do so and you appreciated that fact.[13]

Application

Independent witnesses state that you threatened to ‘break every bone in his body’. It is likely the jury would accept such words as evidence of your direct intention to cause that harm.

Alternatively, the prosecution could argue that such significant use of violence, punching and then kicking Jonathan while he lay on the ground, was virtually certain to cause very serious harm and that you would appreciate that fact.

Conclusion

Either way the prosecution will have little difficulty in demonstrating that you acted with malice aforethought even though you did not intend to kill Jonathan.

Conclusion

In my opinion, it is highly likely that the prosecution will be able to persuade the jury that you murdered Jonathan and that you will therefore be found guilty. This would lead to a mandatory life sentence of imprisonment.[14]

Please let me know if you require my services representing you at your trial.

Yours, etc.

References

[1] Woolmington [1935] AC 462; Michael J Allen & Ian Edwards, Criminal Law (16th ed OUP 2021) 1.4.4.

[2] Allen, 9.2.1.

[3] Williams (1984) 78 CR App R 276; Allen, 9.1.1.

[4] ibid.

[5] White [1910] 2 KB 124.

[6] Allen, 2.6.3.

[7] Poulton (1832) 5 C&P 329

[8] Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789.

[9] Adebolajo [2014] EWCA Crim 2779.

[10] Moloney [1985] 1 AC 905.

[11] Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664.

[12] Moloney (n 10).

[13] Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.

[14] Sentencing Act 2020, Schd 21.