Mooting Bundle Preparation Guide

b Item Page A Original Moot Problem A * Attorney General's Reference (No * of *) [*] * All ER * [*] * Director of Public Prosecutions and Jones v Newbury [*] AC * [*] * R v Bristow [*] EWCA Crim * [*] * R v G and another [*] * AC * [*] * R v JF and Anor [*] EWCA Crim * [*] * R v Lamb [*] * Q.B. * [*] * R v Watson [*] * All ER * [*] * The Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (*) * Law Com * [*] Joe Gregory and his friend Stacey Davison, both *, were hanging out in an abandoned barn next to a nearby farmhouse. While looking among the rusting farmyard equipment they stumbled across some petrol in an old can. As it got closer to the evening, they decided they might create a fire in an attempt to keep warm. They doused a considerable amount of the fuel onto a large pile of logs and hay they had created. Given the amount of fuel used, the fire erupted into a much larger body than either of them had anticipated. It spread to the walls of the wooden barn and then onto the farmhouse. The Joe and Stacey realising what had happened called the fire brigade and the emergency services, but they were too late. By the time the crews arrived there was little more than a smouldering wreckage remaining. Worse still unbeknown to the children, the farm owners, Mr and Mrs Water, were inside the farmhouse at the time and were killed in the fire. Joe and Stacey were both charged with unlawful dangerous act manslaughter with arson as the base crime. At trial the learned judge, Berny J, gave the following directions to the jury: To find the defendant guilty you must consider two things. Firstly, for arson, you must contemplate whether the defendants, without lawful excuse intentionally or recklessly destroyed property belonging to another. Secondly, you must consider if a sober and reasonable person, which you can think yourselves to be, would foresee the risk of some harm resulting from the unlawful act. The reasonable person does not need to have foreseen or contemplated someone in the vicinity merely that there was a possibility of some harm to someone.The jury found both defendants guilty on both counts. IN THE SUPREME COURT BETWEEN: BETWEEN: R (Respondent) -VGREGORY AND ANOR (Appellant) Original Moot Problem On appeal the Court of Appeal held the following: *. The test for dangerousness was correct. This has been given authority via the House of Lords and the court is bound by it. *. The learned judge was right to find that there is no requirement in law to for the *. The learned judge was right to find that there is no requirement in law to for the defendant to foresee an individual to be in the vicinity of the danger. There is merely a requirement of the risk of some harm resulting from the unlawful act. In a joint appeal the Defendants now appeal to the Supreme Court under both of these grounds namely: *. The Supreme Court should apply a subjective test for dangerousness to incorporate the appreciation of the danger the individual may have. *. The Court of Appeal was wrong to find that there need not be a subjective realisation that a person was in the vicinity of the danger. NOTE: Arson is not in dispute, the law is settled in this area and the jury’s findings are not to be questioned. This is just an appeal on the finding of unlawful dangerous act manslaughter. Original Moot Problem written by Harrie Austin-Jones List of Authorities Case Law Attorney General's Reference (No * of *) [*] * All ER * Director of Public Prosecutions and Jones v Newbury [*] AC * R v Bristow [*] EWCA Crim * R v G and another [*] * AC * R v JF and Anor [*] EWCA Crim * R v Lamb [*] * Q.B. * R v Watson [*] * All ER * Other Authorities The Law Commission, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (*) * Law Com * I am the lead respondant