Mooting Competition 2009

All rounds are in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

The Grand Final will be held in the 'Supreme Court of the United Kingdom'.

Moots will be drawn by ballot (thus, the moot may vary from round to round).

.....................................................................

Moot One - R v Fright, Windy and Chary.

Jeremy Luckless, Harry Fright, Walter Windy, and Charles Chary, embarked on a climbing expedition in the Welsh Mountains. They made a base camp and Charles Chary remained there whilst the other three climbed up the mountain. On the third day of their climb, they were traversing a slope with Harry Fright leading and Jeremy Luckless in the middle, and Walter Windy bringing up the rear. They were roped to one another. Suddenly a crevasse opened beneath them, leaving Harry Fright clinging to one side of the chasm and Walter Windy clinging to the other, with Jeremy Luckless hanging over it. Walter Windy called to Harry Fright, "We'll have to cut him off or we'll all go!". Fright called back, "We'll have to do it together or one of us will go with him."

Luckless asked them to cut only one side to allow him the chance to try to gain a hold on the other side of the crevasse. Windy said that this was not practicable in the circumstances. Windy counted to three and he and Fright cut the rope simultaneously. Luckless fell into the chasm, and the other two returned to base camp only to be flown off to an hospital for a checkup.

Chary stayed at the base camp for two days - dismantling it etc. As he was preparing to leave, Luckless crawled into the camp. He had a broken leg, but miraculously he was still alive. Chary was delighted, but then a bad storm hit the camp and Chary decided that the only hope of salvation was to descend to the foothills immediately. He felt that Luckless could not make the descent and that he could not manage to carry him. With great difficulty, he erected a tent and wrapped Luckless in a sleeping bag and left him with a small amount of food. Chary told Luckless that he was going for help and left him.

On the descent, which he thought would only take two days, Chary became lost, and it was not until a week later that he finally reached the nearest village. Assuming that Luckless was dead, Chary told the authorities that their expedition had suffered a casualty. He then returned to London.

In fact, Luckless was found alive by a local team of climbers and was rescued by them. On his return to London, he told his story to the police and Fright and Windy were charged on two counts of attempted murder. In addition, Chary was charged on one count of attempted murder.

At the trial, Fright and Windy pleaded necessity as a defence to the first count of attempted murder (i.e. by cutting the rope). To the second count of attempted murder (i.e. by deserting Luckless), Chary argued that, in the circumstances, he had not formed the necessary intention for murder, and thus he could not be guilty of attempted murder. In the alternative, the defence of necessity was argued.

At the trial, Hangman J ruled that necessity was not recognised by the courts of England and Wales as a defence to a charge of murder or attempted murder. In consequence, he refused to allow the pleas of necessity to be put to the jury. He also directed the jurors that: "they could infer intent to kill, or cause serious harm, if Chary foresaw that the act of leaving Luckless was highly likely to result in his death."

Fright, Windy, and Chary appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis of the ruling and direction by Hagman J.

.........................................................

Moot Two - R v Mary.

Mary is sightseeing in the hills of Wales. She visits a beautiful and huge dam which overlooks a village. She is enjoying the view when she hears a big crack and then notices that the dam has burst and water is beginning to burst out through the crack. She immediately recognises that the thousand or so people living in the village will all perish. She then sees a sign that says "In case of emergency - press the red button and flood the adjacent valley". She notices one man (her ex-boyfriend who she had argued with earlier) and his dog walking in the adjacent valley. She waves at him and shouts - he cannot hear her (he is listening to his iPod) but waves back giving her a two fingered salute - carrying on walking. Mary decides she has to act and presses the red button to save the lives of the people n the village. Her ex-boyfriend is drowned and so is his dog. The TV companies hear of her story and she is presented with a medal by the Queen for saving 1000 lives. On returning home from Buckingham Palace she is arrested by the police and interviewed - subsequently she is charged with murder.

At the trial, her barrister was advised by Judge Hangman that her defence of necessity cannot be applied in light of Dudley v Stephens [1884]. Her barrister also tried to argue the defence of duress of circumstances - but the judge advised this is not a relevant defence for murder. Hence, her barrister continued with the trial and Mary was found guilty of murder - with the jury advising that they believe the judge should show leniency in his sentence. The judge gives a life sentence with a recommendation of a 5 year minimum.

Mary appeals on the following grounds:

(a) The Judge should have allowed the defence of necessity.

(b) If the Judge could not allow the defence of necessity, he should have allowed the defence of duress of circumstances.

(c) The sentence was too harsh in light of the comments of the jury.

.......................................................

Moot Three - R v Able.

Rosemary is married and having some trouble getting pregnant. She is sent to see Dr Able who is an expert in fertility. He recommends certain treatment and within two years she is pregnant. She was told that a multiple pregnancy is likely and therefore she was not surprised to be told that she was having twins. However, she is then told that they are conjoined twins - but she decides to go ahead with the pregnancy because she is a devout catholic and cannot agree to a termination.

The two girls are born conjoined and it is clear that one (Joan) is strong but the other (Elaine) is very weak and dependent upon Joan for her existence. Dr Able wants to operate to separate the twins in order to preserve/extend the life of Joan - even though it will result in the death of Elaine. Rosemary and her husband want "God to decide". The Hospital Trust decide to wait a week to see if they need to apply to the courts. Dr Able is concerned by the prospect of adverse publicity and the effect it will have on his reputation and fertility treatment. He also believes that it is necessary to save the life of Joan and to do that he must cut away and kill Elaine. Consequently, being aware of the outcome in the similar fact case of Re A Children [2000], he [without the Trust knowledge or the parental consent) undertakes the operation to separate the twins - resulting in a potentially healthy development for Joan and the death of Elaine.

Rosemary and her husband complain to the Police. Dr Able is subsequently arrested and charged with the murder of Elaine. At trial, Dr Able tried to argue the defence of necessity. However, Judge Hangman refused to allow such a defence to be presented to the jury. As a consequence, the jury find Dr Able guilty of murder. In summing up, Judge Hangman advised the jury that they can infer/find the necessary intent if they are satisfied that Dr Able was reckless in doing the operation without consent while recognising that death or serious harm was a virtual certainty.

They jury finds Dr Able guilty of murder and he is sentenced to life imprisonment (minimum of 15 years).

See this Powerpoint - showing similar fact case.

Dr Able appeals on the following grounds:

(1) The judges summing up to the jury did not follow the Nedrick/Woollin direction.

(2) The judge was wrong in law to rule out the defence of necessity in light of Re A Children [2000].

(3) Given the judicial comments in Re A Children [2000], the judge has acted irrationally in imposing a life sentence (minimum of 15 years).

.................................................

Moot Four - R v Sundeep.

Sundeep has attended just two meetings of an extreme gay rights group called: 'Heterosexuals are evil'.

Sundeep is having a driving lesson and is picked up outside College. As he is about to swap seating positions, with the qualified driver, they are held up at gunpoint by Shaun an ex-boyfriend (and Chair of the extreme gay rights group). Shaun, who had been drinking heavily, tells the qualified driver to go and take a walk - so he does. Sundeep is then forced to drive to Egham railway station. At the station he is told that he must wait while a bomb is planted otherwise two things will happen.

(1) His mother will be told that he is gay.
(2) His mother will then be shot and killed.

Sundeep waits and Shaun gets back into the car - who tells Sundeep to drive away fast. As they drive over the crossing, a huge explosion occurs and looking in the mirror Sundeep can see destruction and many casualties. In due course, the police trace the car and both are arrested.

Shaun is charged with murder as five people died. Sundeep is charged with being a secondary offender to murder. At the trial, Shaun admits his guilt and is sentenced to life imprisonment (minimum 30 years). Sundeep is granted the defence of duress by Judge Hangman - on the basis of Lynch v DPP [1975] - and is consequently found not guilty by the jury.

The Crown appeals on the following grounds:

(1) The judge was wrong to follow the decision in Lynch v DPP [1975] because it is no longer good law.

(2) Even if the defence of duress could be available on the basis of Lynch v DPP [1975], Sundeep cannot use it in this case as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of compulsion through his involvement in the group, as per R v Sharp [1987].

.............................................