Criminal Law Mooting
Oral Presentation for the case of R v. Waitrose
May it please the court, my name is ………………………, junior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Waitrose. Mr. Waitrose is wrongly convicted of murder after he relieved the long suffering of his eight-year old daughter and his entire family by allowing her to die earlier. This court should find in favor of the appellant for two reasons: First, the test of virtual certainty is inapplicable for this case and second, the appellant’s intention was not in any way malicious. I would categorically state that the test of virtual certainty as determined by the House of Lords in the case of R v. Woolin (1998) is not applicable to this case. Even though the appellant was fully aware that his actions would lead to the death of the girl, convicting him of either murder or manslaughter would be wrong. The basis of this stance is that Mr. Waitrose’s intentions were pure and well-intentioned; as a loving father, he would not want to hurt his daughter deliberately, all he was trying to do was to relieve his daughter of pain. In my opinion, the defense of necessity is sufficient for this case – initiating early death of the girl in the most painless way possible was the only option that Mr. Waitrose had for dealing with his daughter’s pain. He had tried all other all other outright legal mechanisms that were available to him but to no avail. Moreover, basing on the argument of the judges of the Supreme Court of England and Wales in the case of ReA (Conjoined twins) (2001) 2 WLR 480, acquitting Mr. Waitrose of both murder and manslaughter would be the fairest outcome of this case. In the thinking of Lord Justice Walker, this chamber should consider the motive behind Mr. Waitrose’s actions that the perpetrator knew would kill the girl, rather than assessing whether he knew the end result or not. Lord Justice Walker approved of a surgical procedure which would kill one person to save another person since the procedure was meant to save the latter life and to not to end the former life. In the same way, the appellant did what he did not to kill a small innocent girl, but to relieve his beloved daughter of extreme pain that had caused the small girl and the entire family extreme suffering.
