Discuss the criminal liability of Mike

In this situation Mike would be charged with Murder.

Murder is a common law offence. It was defined by Sir Edward Coke as the unlawful killing of a living human being, under the queen’s peace, with malice aforethought, express or implied.

The Actus Reus requires there to be a death through a voluntary act or omission.

In this case the AR was fulfilled through a voluntary act when Mike pushed Pete over the railing. A voluntary act requires full control over yourself unlike Hill v Baxter, where the judge compared the situation to being stung by a swarm of bees.

The Mens Rea of murder is the intention to kill or the intention to cause Grievous Bodily Harm as seen in Vickers, and confirmed in Whoolin with malice aforethought. Direct intent is taken from Mohan, and is a decision to bring about the offence. In this case, intention to kill or cause gbh. Oblique intent is considered when the evidence is not clear whether D had direct intent, as taken from Whoolin where the judge would direct the jury. The jury can find intent is they’re satisfied serious bodily harm or death was a virtual certain consequence of Ds act and that D appreciated this fact. Oblique intent is a test of evidence not proof as restated in Matthews and Alleyne.

In this situation it is virtually certain that pushing someone over the railings from the upper level of a shopping centre to the lower level, would at the very least result in serious harm, but more likely death. It is also reasonable for Mike to know this to be the case.

Therefore, we can establish oblique intent, however we may even be able to prove direct intent. Mike took a few minutes before suddenly running at Pete, in this time he could have easily made a decision to cause serious injury to Pete.

Thus satisfying the AR and MR, Mike would likely successfully be charged with murder.