Criminal law 1 A Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Criminal law 1 A - Essay Examplecessary to show that (a) the accused act a dangerous act (b) the act was dangerous in that a reasonable person would have recognized the potential for harm inherent in the act (c) the act was the cause of death and (d) the accused intended to commit the act, even if he or she did not intend the consequence of the act.1 Apart from this, Jake allow for also be liable for manslaughter with subjective recklessness in regard to the risk of death or bodily harm.Applying this to the question of Jakes liability, his action in spiking Robins alcohol addiction with a drug was a dangerous act, which is also unlawful.2 Applying the standards of a reasonable person, the act of spiking another persons drink with a drug such as LSD will be deemed to be a dangerous act, because of the recognition that it could cause some kind of animal(prenominal) harm3. He has therefore intended an unlawful act of spiking Robins drink which was likely to cause harm, and death res ulted which was neither foreseen nor intended.4 The aggravated form of crook damage with intent to endanger life is set out under Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act of 1971, according to which if the unlawful act actually causes death, the accused will be criminally liable.In the case of R v Dawson5, a petrol station attendant who had a weak bosom died of heart failure when the appellant attempted robbery of the station. In arriving at a determination of whether the unlawful act was dangerous enough to so haze the victim that it causes him physical injury, the Court applied a test based on the average sober and reasonable bystander who would know that the use of a flatulency would terrify people and held the appellant to be guilty of causing death. In the same way, Jake has spiked Robins drink with drugs, which an average, reasonable person would incarnate as one that could potentially have a harmful effect, hence he will be liable.Another aspect that must be considered i s whether Jakes action was the substantial