Jim doesn't like his teenage brother Ted, so decides to push him down the stairs to give him a few bruises. Ted sees Jim before the push. Ted hits the floor hard at the bottom and dies. Discuss Jim's liability for any homicide offences.

Firstly, discuss Jim's liability for murder. There are two parts to this: actus reus (guilty acts) and mens rea (guilty mind). You could argue that the actus reus has been satisfied because Jim has caused the unlawful killing of a human being. The "but for" test can satisfy causation because but for Jim pushing Ted down the stairs, Ted would not have died (e.g. White). This was "more than slight or trifling” (e.g. Kimsey) because Ted died from the fall. However, Jim arguably does not have the direct intention for murder (the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, e.g. Vickers) because he only intended to give Ted a few bruises. The prosecution could potentially argue that the mens rea is satisfied because Jim had indirect intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm if the prosecution can somehow prove that death or grievous bodily harm was virtually certain (e.g. Woollin) from Jim pushing Ted down the stairs, but this may be hard to prove because pushing someone down the stairs (especially a teenage) is probably only likely to cause bruising or a broken bone, not grievous bodily harm or death.Secondly, discuss Jim's liability for any form of manslaughter. Unlawful act manslaughter is a dangerous unlawful act which causes death (actus reus), with the mens rea to commit the unlawful act. Jim committed the actus reus of assault by pushing Ted (causing Ted to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force) with the required mens rea of assault (the intention to cause or subjective recklessness about causing another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence) according to s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. Assault is an unlawful (e.g. Lamb) and dangerous act because all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject Ted to at least the risk of some harm (e.g. Church). As discussed above, causation for Ted’s death is established via the “but for” test. Therefore, Jim is liable for unlawful act manslaughter. This may be easier for the prosecution to prove than murder due to the issues with the mens rea for murder, so it is advisable for the prosecution to charge Jim with unlawful act manslaughter rather than murder.