UCC Exam Question

Seth Brundle

from this news article: http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/real-life/bizarre-irish-water-question-appears-on-ucc-law-exam-327534.html

Irish examiner wrote:

The first question on today's Criminal Law exam asked students to advise a pair of protesters "as to what criminal charges they might face" having caused the death of an Irish Water employee.

"Ruth and Paul are opposed to water charges. They attend a protest outside the offices of Irish Water in Cork. Ruth paints slogans on the fences around the building and shouts verbal abuse at the workers as they enter the building calling them scum and shouting 'we know who you are, we will get you'.

"Paul, wanting to escalate the protest, runs past the fence and throws a lit match into a large rubbish bin positioned next to the office block thinking it will cause a small fire and upset the working of Irish Water by triggering the fire alarm. However, the fire quickly spreads to the building. Although the majority of the staff escape unharmed, Joan is trapped on the third floor. Rather than wait to be rescued, she jumps from a window in her panic and is severely injured. At the hospital Joan is put on life support. However, two weeks later the doctors confirm that there is no hope of recovery and decide to withdraw Joan's life support.

"Advise Ruth and Paul as to what criminal charges they might face."

(let's ignore the suggestion that the accused could resemble members of the socialist party)
I've no training in law and was wondering if it was something like reckless endangerment as they didn't cause the death, Joan herself decided to jump.

What do the experts think?

Seth Brundle

Actually upon reflection, it would be Paul possibly facing a charge of reckless endangerment (or whatever) as Ruth was not part of that but she could face a charge of criminal damage (section 2 of the criminal damage act 1991?)

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ice.cube

Joans conduct in jumping out the window was proportional to that of the threat of the fire so the chain of causation would not be broken for Paul. Look up R v Williams & Davis, Stephenson v State

NoQuarter

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That was the big one that crossed my mind too.

Lots of others; arson, criminal damage, trespass, threats to kill etc etc. A decent question to be fair.

Mr. Incognito

In order imo.

Paul

Assault,
Trespass
Arson
Manslaughter

Ruth
Assault.
No conspiracy

Victor

Is there a case to be made if Ruth and Paul are acting in concert or separately?

kbannon wrote: »

Joan herself decided to jump.

Joan didn't see it that way. Neither will a jury.

Uno my Uno.

The Examiner would also want you to consider if Ruth can be charged with Manslaughter also under the doctrine of shared enterprise. I would think not but as always in exam situations the bulk of the marks are for displaying your knowledge of the doctrine, not getting the correct answer.

EDIT I would also want to show the examiner why I had ruled out the possibility of a Murder charge, no more than two or three lines just to show my knowledge and give a complete answer.

NoQuarter

Agreed. Sometimes in exams you are mentioning stuff to knock them off the list, just to show the examiner you have considered it. But definitely no more than one sentence.