Discuss Adam’s criminal liability, for murder and partial
defences under the Homicide Ordinance which he may raise.
According to the Common Law, murder is an offence that established where there is an unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
However, this definition only appropriates under the Queen’s peace to prevent the killing during wartime being murder. The commission of murder can carry a penalty of twenty-five years or life imprisonment.
To commence with, the first question of this case is whether Adam’s act is voluntary and necessary or not. Since a killing in self-defence may not be regarded as a murder. In Hussey (1924) 18 Cr App Rep160, the accused had fired a gun through a hole on the door, which made by his landlady, and hurt the landlady who tried to evict him from his home at that moment. The Lord Hewart CJ said that the act of the accused was defending his safety and properties so it is lawful.
In this case it is obvious that Adam was voluntary to smash his glass over Leo though it is unnecessary to do that. The reason why Adam did it is not his own safety was threatened but his own angry feeling. Hence, his act is unlawful.
The next issue is did Adam’s unlawful action become the main cause of Leo’s death. It seems that Adam just intent to give Leo a grievous bodily harm only. In R v Blaue, the accused said that the death of the girl is because of her rejection of blood transfusion not his stab. However, the court held that if the accused did not stab the deceased, she need not accept the blood transfusion and will not die also. That is why he was convicted with murder eventually. For Adam’s case, Leo die shortly after his act and there is not any intervention act within this period. Consequently, it is no doubt that “but for”[9] Adam’s actions, Leo would not have died and his action thus caused the Leo’s death.
Although Adam’s voluntary act lead to Leo’s death, he will only be liable...