TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
MILLENNIUM MOOT COURT
COMPETITION (MMCC)
2024
______________________________
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT (COURT OF APPEAL)
______________________________
R V MIRZA AND ASTRID
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT
Speakers: Rabia Tariq and Rida Amir
______________________________
Page 1
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Description
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
BREIF FACTS
PLEADINGS
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Page no.
3
4
5-6
7-10
11
Page 2
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Description
Page no.
Case Law References:
 R v. Blaue (1975) - Principle that individuals must take
their victims as they find them.
 Collins v. Wilcock (1984) - Circumstances gone
beyond generally acceptable standards of conduct.
 R v. Pagett (1983) - Emphasis on legal causation and
attributing consequences to the accused's actions.
 R v. Cheshire (1991) - Recognition that the intent to
cause serious harm may be inferred from the accused's
actions.
Case Law on Intent and Recognition:
 Homicide Act (1957) - Legal basis for murder charges,
emphasizing intent.
 R v. Fagan (1969) – Leading case that confirms the
need of coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea.
Additional Case Law Supporting Intent Inference:
 R v. Evans (2009) - Supporting the inference of intent
from the accused's actions.
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
Page 3
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. Mirza’s conviction of murder should be overturned as there is no casual
connection or it should be substituted by constructive manslaughter.
2. Astrid is not liable for murder as she killed Bjorn in an accident.
Page 4
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
BRIEF FACTS
Facts Relevant for Legal Analysis:
1. Mirza's Aggressive Actions:

Mirza engages in a heated argument with John, resulting in
Mirza shouting and prodding John in the chest.

Unaware of John's recent car accident, the rib penetration
aggravates John's injury.
2. John's Pre-existing Condition:

John recently suffered a car accident, resulting in a fractured rib.

Mirza's action exacerbates John's injury, leading to respiratory
distress and eventual death.
3. Bjorn's First Aid Attempt:

Mirza calls over Bjorn, a trained teacher, for assistance.

Bjorn administers mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and chest
compressions, inadvertently compounding John's lung injury.
4. Death of John:

John becomes unable to breathe for over 6 minutes and died.
Page 5
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
5. Astrid's Reaction:

A few days later, Astrid, John's mother, accidentally collides with
Bjorn while driving.

Astrid recognizes Bjorn as the person she believes is responsible
for her son's death.
6. Astrid's Statement:

Shocked and furious, Astrid expresses her anger towards Bjorn,
stating, "That serves you right. I hope you die."
7. Bjorn's Fatal Injuries:

As a result of the collision, Bjorn suffers severe head injuries and
dies ten minutes later.
______________________________________________
Page 6
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
PLEADINGS:
Re: Mirza v. The State - Respondent's Counterargument
I am writing to respond to the appellant's grounds for appeal on behalf of Mirza,
and to assert the continued validity of Mirza's conviction and the charges against
Astrid. The circumstances surrounding Mirza's actions, as well as Astrid's
subsequent behavior, align with established case law, justifying the original
charges. The following counterarguments, supported by relevant case law,
illustrate the grounds for our position:
I. Mirza's Conviction - Murder Charge
Mirza's conviction for murder is defended based on the foreseeability of harm and
his culpable recklessness.
1. Foreseeability and Causation:

Mirza's actions in prodding John during their altercation could be
seen as directly contributing to the chain of events that led to John's
death.

The proximity of the prod to the broken rib resulting in severe
consequences establishes the foreseeability of harm and legal
causation.

Connection to Case Law:
 R v. Blaue (1975) - Blaue underscores the principle that
individuals must take their victims as they find them.
Page 7
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
 R v. Pagett (1983) - Pagett establishes the principle of legal
causation and the attribution of consequences to the accused's
actions.
 R v. Smith (1959) -Intervening Act in unintentional actions.
Despite this intervening act, the defendant was still held
responsible for the victim's death. As Mirza's actions can be
considered a significant cause because his actions were the
initial cause of the harm.
2. Intent to Cause Harm:

Mirza's actions, coupled with the heated argument, suggest intent to
cause harm. The act of prodding, even without knowledge of the rib
fracture, implies a degree of reckless behavior, aligning with
Cheshire.

Mirza should have reasonably foreseen the potential harm caused by
his aggressive behavior.

Connection to Case Law:
 Collins V. Wilcock (1984)- The test must be whether the physical
contact so persisted in has in the circumstances gone beyond
generally acceptable standards of conduct. In Mirza case it is too
forceful.
 R v. Cheshire (1991) - Cheshire recognizes that the intent to cause
serious harm may be inferred from the accused's actions.
________________________________________________________________
Page 8
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
II. Astrid's Liability - Murder Charge
Astrid's actions following the collision with Bjorn should be considered for a
murder charge due to the presence of motive and intention. Her emotional
outburst, when examined in context, suggests a deeper level of culpability.
1. Recognition of the Victim and Motive:

Astrid recognized Bjorn as the person she believed responsible for
her son's death. Her statement, coupled with this recognition,
indicates a motive for causing harm, aligning with the legal
requirements.

Connection to Case Law:
 Homicide Act 1957 - The Homicide Act 1957 outlines the legal
basis for murder charges, emphasizing the need for intent.
 R v. Fagan (1969) – Leading case that confirms the need of
coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Fagan was convicted
of assault occasioning actual bodily harm due to the continuing
nature of his act. Similarly, in Astrid's case, her actions in
causing the car accident that resulted in Bjorn's death can be
seen as a continuing act.
2. Intent and Emotional Outburst:
 Astrid's verbal expression of ill-will towards Bjorn immediately after
recognizing him suggests a level of intent. The emotional distress,
when coupled with recognition, elevates the act beyond a mere
accident and supports the argument that she had the necessary
intent for a murder charge.
 Connection to Case Law:
 R V. Evans (2009) - Supporting the inference of intent from the
accused's actions. In Astrid's case, after causing the car
Page 9
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
accident that led to Bjorn's injuries, Astrid failed to render
assistance to him.
 R v. Watson (1989) - Watson establishes that intent can be
inferred from the circumstances surrounding an act.
We appreciate the court's careful consideration of these counterarguments and
trust that the original charges and convictions are well-founded based on the
principles laid out in relevant legal precedents.
Page 10
TEAM CODE: TEAM FINANCE
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
May it please the Court, for the forgoing reasons, the Applicant respectfully
requests the Court to adjudge and seeks the following relief from the court:
1. Upholding Mirza's Conviction: We request that Mirza's conviction for
murder be upheld based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal
principles. Mirza's aggressive actions directly led to John's death, and the
subsequent attempt at resuscitation exacerbated the situation, resulting in his
untimely demise.
2. Recognition of Astrid's Liability: We argue that Astrid should be held
liable for her actions towards Bjorn. Her deliberate statement and subsequent
failure to render aid directly contributed to Bjorn's death. Despite her
emotional state, her actions were intentional and resulted in fatal
consequences.
An appeal for a just and equitable resolution, ensuring that the charges against
Mirza and Astrid are commensurate with the established legal principles and
precedents.
The Honorable Court is further requested to declare such guidelines, as it deems fit
and essential in the present case.
Page 11