Snape's Remorse: another erratum

[bluesqueak]

Eloise wrote:
> Just realised that I used the totally non-sensical term "British 
> Law" which betrays my lack of expertise on the subject. ;-) I  
> still believe Snape could have been directly accused of attempted 
> murder, however, whatever the circumstances.
> 
> I think this from Pip very interesting:
> 
> >>The term is 'ruse de guerre', and it's legitimate in law. The
> killing someone who is already dying is a case of 'novus actus
> interveniens' - did Snape's act break the chain of causation? If
> there's a reasonable probability Dumbledore was already dying, and
> had reached the point where nothing could save him, then - it
> didn't. And thus it was not murder.<<
> 
Eloise:
> It's a case of circumstances altering cases, as if you 
> intentionally kill someone you know is dying and cannot be helped 
> in other circumstances (eg terminal illness) it is still murder. 

Pip!Squeak:
That, I *think*, is different. I'm only a poor little actor; I play 
lawyers but I'm certainly *not* one - but from 'Judge' Hall's crash 
course on trying Snape, I think that killing someone who is 
otherwise dying from natural causes is to 'break the chain of 
causation'. The cause of death in these cases *should have been* 
natural causes. By intervening, you have changed the cause of 
death.  

OTOH, if somebody has been previously wounded, then quoting from 
http://www.sixthform.info/law/02_cases/mod4/murder/13_1_actus_of_murd
er.htm

Smith, R v [1959] CMAC
"If at the time of death the original wound is still an operating 
cause and a substantial cause, then death can be said to be a result 
of the wound albeit that some other cause is also operating."

The fun case of White, R v [1910] CA 
"D put cyanide into his mother's lemonade drink, but she died of 
heart failure before the poison could kill her. The answer to the 
question 'But for what the defendant did would she have died?' 
is 'No'. She would have died anyway."


As you correctly point out, D was aquitted of murder, on the grounds 
his mother was dying and did die of natural causes, but was found 
guilty of attempted murder for giving her cyanide. 

However, the ruse de guerre defence we used was also a defence 
against attempted murder; to quote from the Law Lord Viscount Sankey:

"If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a 
reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the 
prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the 
deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made 
out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter 
what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the 
prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the 
common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be 
entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove 
(a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) 
malice of the accused." 

So - there is reasonable doubt that Snape's intervention was the 
actual cause of Dumbledore's death (that's point (a) ) and, thanks 
to the ruse de guerre possibility, there is also a reasonable doubt 
that he acted with malice towards Dumbledore (that's point (b) ). 
Acquittal on murder, acquittal on attempted murder.

You then move onto manslaughter, but there again, the doubt that it 
was Snape's act which *really* killed Dumbledore comes into play. If 
it 'wus the potion, m'lud', then manslaughter's out as well.

Pip!Squeak
"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape.