Case Processing Time in Criminal Justice System

Advise the CPS on charging for homicide, offences against the person, and property offences only of

Tom Howard, in relation to

Rafe Sadler

Issue. The issue, in this case, is whether defendant Howard should be charged with murder or manslaughter of Rafe Sadler who jumped to his death after the fire broke out.

Rule. Under the UK law, murder and manslaughter fall under the umbrella term of homicide. For an act of killing to be classified as murder, the perpetrator needs to be sane (of sound mind and discretion) and the victim – to be a reasonable creature in being (born alive and breathing autonomously without any external aid as riled in Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority)¹. The killing should be unlawful, i.e. it cannot be done in self-defense, and done under the Queen’s Peace. What differs murder from manslaughter is the intent to kills or cause a lethal injury or bodily harm. There are two categories of involuntary manslaughter: death caused by gross negligence or his or her unlawful or dangerous act². It is important to evaluate whether the unlawful act was dangerous. To do so, it suffices not to rely on the defendant’s understanding of the danger; the objective test needs to employ the knowledge attributed to the sober and reasonable bystander.

Application. Tom Howard did not have the intention to kill Rafe Sadler, even though their relationships had been tense in the last few months. As evidenced by Howard and other witnesses, the defendant’s main intent was to burn down the house to have everyone rehoused. Therefore, the defendant committed involuntary manslaughter caused by an act that would be perceived as dangerous by the sober and reasonable bystander.

Conclusion. Tom Howard may be sentenced to at least 18 years’ custody for unlawful act manslaughter.

Mercy Prior

Issue. The question arises as to whether Howard’s actions in relation to Prior’s injuries can be classified as causing and inflicting.

Rule. Under the UK law, “grievous bodily harm” refers to serious bodily harm. For bodily harm to be considered grievous, it does not have to be permanent or dangerous. The jury needs to make an assessment based on contemporary social standards. The victim’s age, health status, and other characteristics need to be taken into consideration, and the effects of the harm need to be put in the real context³. Injuries that require significant or sustained medical treatment, such as an emergency surgery or intensive care, typically qualify as grievous bodily harm, even if the victim fully recovers. Section 18 covers cases when injuries or wounds were caused by the perpetrator. In other words, for section 18 to be used for the ruling, the perpetrator must have the intention to cause grievous bodily harm and nothing less. Under section 20, the victim suffers from wounds or injuries as a result of the perpetrator’s unlawful act with no direct intent to hurt the victim⁴. However, the prosecution must prove that the defendant foresaw the harmful effects of the crime.

Application. Mercy Prior’s burns were serious enough to require a skin graft surgery. Though not life threatening, they may still require maintenance. Apart from that, scarring may change Mercy’s appearance and become a source of insecurity for the young woman. The gravity of the injuries should be based on the victim’s perception and, potentially, a mental health professional’s assessment. Though Howard sided with Mercy’s ex-boyfriend after their breakup, nowhere in their case is it suggested that he had the intention to harm the victim. Therefore, he did not cause but inflict injuries on the victim as a result of his unlawful and dangerous act.

Conclusion. Tom Howard caused grievous body harm to Mercy Prior that can be classified as unlawful wounding/ inflicting. Though the defendant must have foreseen some physical harm to Prior, he did not have the intention to do so, which is why he is facing a sentence of only five years.

Jenneke Cromwell

Issue. The question is whether Howard’s unlawful act encouraged Jenneke’s suicide or was rather manslaughter.

Rule. Section 2 of the Suicide Act of 1961 makes it a criminal offence to encourage or assist the suicide or attempted suicide of another person. For a person to be charged with incitement, the prosecution needs to prove two facts. The suspect must have done an act that encouraged or assisted the suicide or attempted suicide. The acts vary: it can be supply of lethal drugs or providing Internet instructions. The second fact to prove is the suspect’s intention to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide. The offence of inciting suicide carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment⁵.

The key difference between incitement and manslaughter is the mens rea of the offender. By definition, encouraging or assisting suicide would require that the offender have an interest in the victim’s engagement in a certain suciidal behavior. In establishing manslaughter, there needs to be proof that the offender had no such interest or intention. Further, involuntary manslaughter due to a dangerous, unlawful act would have to undergo the objectivity test of the sober and reasonable bystander. In recent history, there is only one case where causing someone to commit suicide was considered manslaughter. In 2006, a man faced such charges on the premise that he inflicted a psychological injury on his wife, who eventually killed herself. Though the charges were dismissed, the court did not rule out the possibility of a future case in which causing suicide would qualify as manslaughter⁶.

Application. Tom Howard did not encourage nor assisted Jenneke Cromwell’s suicide and had no interest in doing so. However, it could be established that he could have foreseen that the arson would result in someone’s grave injuries and severe psychological traumas, which would qualify his act as unlawful act manslaughter.

Conclusion. There is a possibility that Tom Howard will be sentenced to at least 18 years’ custody for unlawful act manslaughter.

Tom Howard, in relation to the events on the morning of 3 May

Issue. Tom Howard has an altercation with a strange man, William Kingston, on the street and eventually steals money from Kingston. The question is whether Howard’s actions were assault or self defence.

Rule. Basic principles of self-defence are found in Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814 and approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551. It is stated that “It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary⁷.” In order to establish self-defence, the jury needs to understand whether the use of force was necessary in the circumstances and if there was a need for use of any force; the reasonability of force is also considered. Theft is defined as a dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another person with the intention to deprive the person of the said property. Category 4 theft refers to the appropriation of low value goods (up to £500) and little or no significant additional harm to the victim⁸.

Application. Though provoked, Kingston initiated the physical attack, while Howard responded to danger with the same amount of force. Appropriating Kingston’s money cannot be seen as part of self-defence and should be considered theft.

Conclusion. Tom Howard is guilty of Category 4 theft and facing a high level community order as a starting point.

Honor Lisle, in relation to Mercy Prior

Issue. Honor Lisle neglects her professional duties and knocks a tube attached to Mercy Prior’s ventilator, which results in the patient’s death. The issue is whether Honor Lisle should be held liable for murder or manslaughter.

Rule. Murder is defined as a killing with the intent of causing the death of a victim. Conversely, manslaughter has no such intent and can take three forms: (1) killing with the intent of murder but with a loss of control or diminished responsibility; (2) grossly negligent conduct; and (3) an unlawful act involving danger or harm⁹. In order to establish gross negligence, the following facts need to be proven: (1) the offender owed a duty of care to the victim; (2) the offender breached their duty due to negligence or omission; (3) the act of negligent act or omission caused the death; 4) the negligence can be considered gross negligence and, hence, can be qualified as a criminal offence¹⁰.

Application. Honor Lisle had not intent whatsoever to kill Mercy Prior, which is why the death cannot be considered a murder. Therefore, what Lisle did was manslaughter due to grossly negligent conduct, and the following facts prove that it is exactly this type. Firstly, as the anaesthetist, Lisle owed the duty of care to the patient Mercy Prior. By flirting with other nurses instead of paying attention to Prior, she breached the duty. It has been established that the unplugged ventilator was the cause of death, and since negligence resulted in the death of a person, it is considered gross.

Conclusion. Honor Lisle is guilty of manslaughter, a common law offence that carries a maximum of life imprisonment.

Court delay is a shorthand term that means the unreasonably long time spent between the initiation and disposition of criminal charges. There is an opinion that well-meaning prosecutors often unreasonably delay court ruling by introducing extra steps to the process. By doing so, they “clog” the criminal justice system and drain resources that are already scarce. It is not uncommon for lawyers to embark on decisively unwinnable cases and defend the indefensible. On the other hand, haste can result in misinterpretation of evidence and unfair sentences. In this case, court delay may be a virtue because it allows both sides to spend more time carefully and deliberately considering all facts. This essay argues that case processing time can and should be optimized, but the legal limitations of the time spent on each case may be far from effective.

Court delays may result in participants’ fatigue, forgetfulness, and loss of motivation to engage. Between 2009 and 2010, the UK Ministry of Justice conducted a survey that looked for predictors of satisfaction and willingness to engage with the criminal justice system. The findings suggest that both victims and witnesses preferred to be given contact details so that they could inquire about the progress of the case. The sooner the victim or witness heard something new about the case, the more satisfied and likely to further engage in the case. Satisfaction was also contingent on actual charges and resolution of the case¹¹. All in all, timeliness was key to active participation and contentment, which advances any case.

It is impossible to ignore the financial aspect of restoring justice either, and generally, longer cases mean more expenses. In 2015, the British government introduced new court fees which had so far been the highest in recent history. For some categories, the increases had amounted to 620%¹². Britain’s most senior judge commented on the new legislation, saying that justice had become unaffordable to the average UK citizen. Despite the wide criticism of the reforms, they are here to stay. Furthermore, civil cases do not allow legal aid, and law firms refuse to work on the “no-win, no-fee” basis. To conclude, lengthy litigation drains the plaintiff and may prevent them from restoring justice.

However, making speedy trials obligatory to “unclog” the system may face many hurdles. The complexity of a case and the seriousness of charges typically add to processing time. Use of weapon, multiple defendants, multiple charges, and aggravating circumstances are factors that require more careful consideration in court. The type of arrest also influences how long it takes to reach disposition: while apprehending the suspect at the scene shortens the time, the necessity to do a search, introduce incriminating evidence, or issue an indictment has the opposite effect. Defendants under the age of 16 or 18 are handled in entirely different courts and their cases often receive special treatment.

Because of the trend toward restorative justice, there is a need for court rulings that would rehabilitate and deter delinquent youth from crime rather than keep them in the system for life. Therefore, legal limits may defeat the end goal of restoring justice because a “cookie-cutter” standard would practically dismiss the unique characteristics of each case.

Apart from that, speedy trials are not only universally unachievable but sometimes potentially harmful. The UK law system has a lengthy list of cases when justice was miscarried. According to McCracken, in Northern Ireland alone, between 2007 and 2017, 84 people, 90% of whom are men, were wrongfully convicted. At least half of them were put behind the bars, collectively amounting to more than 100 years of imprisonment¹³. Twelve out of 84 had life sentences, and if it was not for the new interest in their cases and eventual exoneration, they would have probably spent their whole lives in prison. Overturning these convictions did not only take time but also required immense expenses. Though already overburdened, the UK criminal justice system paid nine million pounds in compensation due to just ten wrongful conviction cases¹⁴. It is safe to conclude that making snap decisions may result in innocent people being charged for crimes that they did not commit and the system facing even more hearings, paperwork, and expenses.

The United Kingdom’s criminal justice system has long been under attack for its alleged unfairness and inefficiency. One of the biggest problems which the system has yet to move is the law’s delay, or in other words, low time-efficiency of justice execution. Case processing time is a good predictor of all involved parties’ motivation to partake, psychological wear-and-tear, and the costs of court proceedings. Apart from that, a speedy trial is less costly, especially in the light of the new UK court fee reforms. Yet, setting standards for court processing times may become tricky because generalizations would leave out too many important details such as the complexity and seriousness of the case. Arriving at disposition too fast may result in wrongful convictions and millions spend in compensations to exonerated victims of justice miscarriage.

Reference List

Beale, N., ‘Staggering Price of Civil Court Fees Comes with a Human Cost’, The Guardian, 2016. Web.

McCracken, N., ‘Millions Spent Compensating Wrongful Convictions’, BBC, 2019. Web.

McGorrery, P., and McMahon, M., 2019, ‘Causing Someone Else to Commit Suicide: Incitement or Manslaughter?’, Alternative law journal, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 23-28.

Ministry of Justice, 2012, ‘Revision to Satisfaction and Willingness to Engage with the Criminal Justice System: Findings from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey, 2009–10 (WAVES report)’. Web.

Sentencing Council, ‘Theft – general’, 2016. Web.

The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Gross Negligence Manslaughter’, 2019. Web.

The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter’, 2019. Web.

The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Offences against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard’, 2020. Web.

The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime’, 2019. Web.

The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Suicide: Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide’, 2014. Web.

Footnotes

1. The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter’, 2019. Web.
2. ibid.
3. The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Offences against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard’, 2020. Web.
4. ibid.
5. The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Suicide: Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide’, 2014. Web.
6. P. McGorrery and M. McMahon, 2019, ‘Causing Someone Else to Commit Suicide: Incitement or Manslaughter?’, Alternative law journal, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 25.
7. The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime’, 2019. Web.
8. Sentencing Council, ‘Theft – general’, 2016. Web.
9. The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Gross Negligence Manslaughter’, 2019. Web.
10. ibid.
11. Ministry of Justice, ‘Revision to Satisfaction and Willingness to Engage with the Criminal Justice System: Findings from the Witness and Victim Experience Survey, 2009–10 (WAVES report)’, 2012. Web.
12. N. Beale, ‘Staggering Price of Civil Court Fees Comes with a Human Cost’, The Guardian, 2016. Web.
13. N. McCracken, ‘Millions Spent Compensating Wrongful Convictions’, BBC, 2019. Web.
14. ibid.