Criminal Law – Evidence of Crime and Robbery

Criminal Law – Evidence of Crime and Robbery The evidence provided points out the fact that there was burglary, property destruction, death, bodily harm, assault, helping one to commit a crime and robbery. Christine Young and Steve Williams are placed at the scene of the crime as potential suspects. The incident in question and evidence adduced raises concerns about several possible offences that were committed. The offences include burglary, malicious damage to property, murder and attempted murder, abetting a crime, assault, and robbery. Steve Williams and Christine Young link to burglary, and arson can lead to several charges for each.

Steve Williams The police can charge Steve Williams for the following crimes: Damage of property Damage of property includes any act that of defacing, altering, marking, defacing, destroying a part of, or destroying property without any lawful or excusable reason. The damage can be physical and non-physical, especially where items such as computer hardware are involved. The property damage would affect its functioning, value, state, or existence. In the case at hand, Williams committed an act that affirms his contribution to the damaging of Rosie's house.

The interview Christine Young gave the police indicates that Steve Williams smashed a window of the deceased's house with a hammer and went in. The deliberate act of smashing the window has elements of mens rea and actus reus. Williams knew that his act was unlawful but still went ahead to carry it out because he was determined to break into the house and steal jewellery. In enhance, Williams acted with malice. The damage causes to the houses is an act of crime orchestrated by Williams. Under Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971, any person unlawfully excuse damages property belonging to another is deemed guilty of an offence. If the police can corroborate the statement by Christine, they can prosecute Williams for destroying Rosie Wright's property.

Arson The crime of arson can be defined as burning someone else property with malicious intent. For arson charges to hold, it should be proved that the act of causing fire was malicious, there was burning, the property burned was a dwelling place, and that it belonged to someone else other than the offender as required under Section 1(3) The Criminal Damage Act 1971. The four elements are critical to confirming arson.

The fire caused at Rosie Wright's house can also be linked to Williams, which can allow the police to prosecute him for arson under section 1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971. Arson can be invoked where someone without any lawful reason causes fire to burn someone else's property or part of it. Although there is no clear evidence to show that William caused the fire that burned down Rosie Wright's house, there is the possibility that he started the fire as a cover-up to his

crime. In this respect, the police can knit together all possible evidence to link him to the cause of the fire. Nevertheless, it is important to note that none of the witnesses has linked Williams to the fire. Circumstantial evidence places William at the centre of arson, which the police can leverage to press arson charges on him. Testimonies from Christine young and Marc Johnson can be treated as circumstantial evidence in charging Williams for arson. Christine saw him enter the house before she later saw the smoke emerge. Johnson on his side saw Williams emerge from the burning house with luggage, stolen item before he ran away with a neighbour's car. The two accounts of the appearance of Williams at the scene of the crime and his behaviours, supported by evidence from the two witnesses can be used to charge him for arson under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

Murder Murder is defined as the act of unlawful killing or causing another person to die with malicious prior knowledge, regardless of whether it is implied or express. Actus rea in a murder case involves the prior knowledge about the act having the potential to kill or intentional killing of another person. The killing should be without any lawful validation for it to be termed as murder; in this case, the act of starting a fire cannot be considered lawful. Moreover, for a death to be classified as murder, there should be no novus actus interveniens that aided death (R v Smith [1959] 2 QB). The defendant actions or inactions should be the sole causation of death.

Linked to the offence of arson is the murder of Rosie Wright. The police can prosecute Williams for the murder of Rosie Wright. She solely died as a result of the fire outbreak at her house on the morning Williams broke into her house to steal jewellery. However, for the murder case to hold, the police are required to gather more information that can link Williams to the fire

outbreak. The case of murder will be bolstered with the confirmation that William was responsible for the arson attack at Rosie Wright's house on the said morning. Regardless of the intention of causing fire, linking Williams to the cause of the fire is needed to file a murder charge against him. Starting a fire in a house occupied by people or a person is an act of murder if it results in death.

R v Matthews [2003] EWCA affirms the possibility of Williams being charged with murder if it is confirmed that he started the fire at Rosie's house. If an individual causes fire with the hope that the victims would run away to safety but he or she fails to run to safety, ending up dead due to burns, smoker, or both, the perpetrate can be charged for murder.

Manslaughter The offence of manslaughter can be defined as the unintentional killing of another person through an unlawful act. If the defendant can argue that he had no intention to kill Rosie but rather the fire outbreak was meant to cover his robbery, he can be considered for manslaughter.

However, the manslaughter charge would also be reinforced with confirmation that Williams was the one who started or caused the fire that burned down Rosie's house on the morning of 3rd August. Mens rea for murder can be deduced from the presence of transferred malice, recklessness, gross negligence or intention as affirmed in R v Walker and Hayles (1990). The burglar, if proved that he started the fire to conceal his crime, can be said to have acted maliciously and recklessly to the detriment of Rosie's safety. As a consequence of this reckless act of causing fore, Rosie suffered severe injuries that resulted in her death.

In the case of manslaughter, causation is an important element in determining the liability of the suspect for the crime. The cause of Rosie injuries is the fire. It is the same injuries that led to her

death, hence no breaking of the chain of causation to shift liability as it is seen in R v Wallace (Berlinah) [2018] EWCA. Rosie would not have died if there was no fire outbreak at her house that left her with severe lung injuries. Going by the prima facie evidence gathered, the fire was intentionally caused during the burglary, underscoring the relationship between the two events.

Williams, as the suspected instigator of the fire, would be charged with manslaughter in the death of Rosie.

Aggravated Burglary Aggravated burglary refers to the act of gaining unlawful entry into a building to steal. The act is unlawful and is inflicted on another person's property or house. The use of any tool, real or improvised, to gain entry into someone else's house and the possibility of the same tool as a weapon results in an offence of aggravated burglary as evidence in R v Kelly (1992). From the evidence presented, Williams is suspected of having stolen jewellery and a box with several thousand pounds after breaking into the house. The act is per se a theft offence because it intended to deprive Rosie and her family of the ownership of the aforementioned items.

Aggravated Vehicle-Taking: the offence can also be considered if the vehicle was damaged, was used to harm someone else, or was dangerously driven. See Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992. In this case, although the car was recovered, the police can consider suing Williams for theft of the car.

Assault Assault can be defined as an act through which an individual purposefully or irresponsibly cause another person to suffer violence by applying unlawful force -s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. In

an assault case, the prosecution must establish prima facie evidence that the unlawful violence suffered was as a result of the defendant acts, the defendant intention was to cause the victims imminent harm, and the defendant caused the victims to suffer the violence.

An act of assault was committed when Williams punched Fraiser, leaving him unconscious. He punched him with the express knowledge that his action would cause harm to the victim, hence the presence of mens rea. The act in question involved physical assault, invoking the application of relevant laws to punish the offender. Section 48 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it unlawful to inflict bodily on another person maliciously. From Marc Johnson statement, Williams punched the car owner the pulled up around the place of the incident before running away with his vehicle. The man who was punched is Brian Fraser, who was punched and knocked unconscious as he was parking his car at 5.40 am on 3rd August at number 64 Slade Street. He was treated in the hospital, underscoring the presence of bodily harm arising from the assault by Williams. It is important to note that the time of the offence is the same in the statements by Marc Johnson and information in police files captured from Fraiser. As seen in DPP v Parmenter [1992], bodily harm does not have to be permanent to qualify for Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). Moreover, the psychological harms that Faiser suffered as a result of the punch from Williams can also qualify as ABH as evidenced in R v Chan-Fook [1993] EWCA. In prosecuting Williams for assault leading to ABH, the police should consider his culpability, the degree of injuries suffered by Fraiser, the harm inflicted, the factors that aggravated the offence, and the possible sentence on conviction of the offender. The choice of assault charges should be supported by available evidence. In this case, Williams can be prosecuted for assault resulting in GBH instead of common assault to ensure that he gets the maximum attainable sentence if he is found guilty.

Burglary Burglary is another offence that emerges from information that is shared. Christine admits that Williams broke into Rosie's house by striking the window with a hummer. The break-in that was perpetuated by Williams was to steal from Rosie Wright. Young and Dave Wright have provided evidence that can support the burglary charge. Several jewellery items and a cash box the deceased had kept in the house are missing after the incident. The police have to carry out more investigation to determine where the lost items are to strengthen the burglary case against Williams. According to sections 9 and 10 of the Theft Act 1968, any person is considered to have committed burglary if he or she enters any building without authorisation, steals or makes an attempt to steal something in the building. It also involves the infliction of serious bodily harm or an attempt to do so on anyone found therein during the unlawful entry to steal. Burglary at a dwelling place carried a serious penalty as evidenced in R v Courtie [1984] than when committed at a business premise. From the evidence by young, Williams broke into the house to steal jewellery, a fact that has been corroborated by evidence by Dave Wright, Christine Young, and Marc Johnson. The three can be relied upon to support the prosecution of Williams because of the interconnectedness between their statements to the effect that a burglary was committed at Rosie Wright's house at number 64 Slade Street on the morning of 3rd August.

Christine Young Christine, based on her confessions and statement from Marc Johnson, she can be charged for the following offences: Abetting Crime

She was responsible for transporting Williams to Rosie Wright's house at number 64 Slade Street on the morning of 3rd August to commit a crime. She knew about the plan to break into Rosie's house to steal jewellery and chose to cooperate on the promise to be paid well. The law makes it an offence for any person to knowingly facilitate someone to commit a crime or escape from a scene of the crime after committing any offence. Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 and the Criminal Law Act 1967 criminalise aid or counsel to a person or person to commit an indictable offence. Christine is liable for agreeing to aid the burglary and, by extension, the burning of Rosie's house by her act of transporting him to the targeted house. In this case, the police can invoke s46 Serious Crime Act 2007 to charge her for the same crimes as Williams (R v Sadique [2013] EWCA Crim 1150 and R v Clarkson and Others (1971)).

Christine has confessed her involvement in the crime in question for financial benefits. Her involvement is not a question but what offences she can be charged with. R v Jogee notes that participation in supporting a crime can be through various ways, including encouraging; in this case, Christine encouraged Williams to commit a crime by offering him transport and accepting pay that would accompany her services.

Burglary and damage of property As an assessor to the crime, Christine would, by default, be charged for crimes committed by Williams, as seen in R v Betts and Ridley (1930). R v Betts and Ridley establishes that a person does not need to be at the venue of crime when it is committed to be considered the accessory. In this respect, Christine can be prosecuted for abetting the burglary and destruction of properties.

The fact that she had agreed to participate in criminal activity with Williams ties her to the offences committed by default. She was aware that the jewellery would not be accessed and

stolen without breaking into the house, hence her liability through the supportive act. It is imperative to note that she has already confessed her willful contribution to the crime. She made the confession with full knowledge about what her actions mean within a legal framework.

In conclusion, the prosecution, police can prefer charges of burglary, assault, aggravated burglary, arson, destruction of properties, murder and manslaughter, and aggravated vehicletaking against Williams. Christine can be charged for abetting crime, burglary, and damage of property as an assessor to the crimes that Williams committed. However, the murder, manslaughter, and arson charges require that the police establish evidence that links Williams to the cause of the fire that burned Rosie's house. The stolen items should also be found to reinforce the case about burglary and theft.