I need help summarizing the following to the point questions IRAC model The Case of the Speluncean Explorers IRAC Format Issue A number of cave explorers (spelunkers) are trapped by a landslide Approaching starvation, they make radio contact with the rescue team Engineers on the rescue team estimate that the rescue will take a further 10 days After describing their situation to physicians, they are told it is unlikely that they will survive another 10 days without food The explorers ask the physicians whether they would survive if they killed and ate one of their numbers The physicians advise, reluctantly, that they would When asked if they ought to hold a lottery to determine whom to kill and eat, no one on the rescue team is willing to advise The radio is turned off, and later a lottery is held The loser is killed and eaten When they are rescued they are prosecuted for murder, for which, in the Commonwealth of Newgarth, a guilty verdict carries a mandatory sentence of capital punishment Relevant Law Common law of England and Wales ( Murder, Homicide, Manslaughter ) Applying the Law There are multiple judgments over this case and we are going to brief them one by one 1 Judgment of Truepenny CJ When the case started defendants were treated for shock and after that, the hearing begins, Their early testimony was accepted by the jury in which they claimed that they decided to throw a dice that Whitmore had for the decision about who to kill for food, and no one objected to it The odds came against Whitmore and they approached and killed him as a result of that Based on that they were indicted for murder At trial, prosecution, and defense accepted the charge of guilty of murder The trial judge sentenced them to mandatorycapital punishment of murder, to be hanged Later on, the jury pleads to reduce the sentence to 6 months of prison and the trial judge accepted that but Later Chief Justice Truepenny CJ upheld the conviction of capital punishment by saying justice can be done in this way, without disregarding either the letter or spirit of the law Thus, Truepenny CJ upholds the conviction 2 Judgment of Foster J Foster J gave a review of these cases by stating some interpretations of the law jurisdiction some are given below ( ) The people in that cave were far out of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth The explorers were 'not in a state of civil society but in a state of nature ' and consequently, the laws of the Commonwealth of Newgarth do not apply ( ) The Judge argued that If it was proper that ten lives should be sacrificed to save the lives of five imprisoned explorers, why then are we told it was wrong for these explorers to carry out an arrangement that would save four lives at the cost of one ( ) The judge stated that A 'constitutional contract' does not operate the same as a civil contract, All of those men agreed to throw the dice and in that case, it becomes a civil contract unfavorably or may be against the law but it was within the reach of natural laws Foster J concludes that the conviction should be set aside 3 Judgment of Tatting J In Tatting J's review of the case, he cited that there is no clear basis for the decision that these men were somehow outside the jurisdiction of Common Law In his view, It was impossible for Whetmore to act in self defense as he made a bargain and he had to live up to that Tatting J finds that the criminal law related to murder couldn't have been a deterrent for those men as they were faced with a choice of an alternative of life or death The case cited in this regard was the fictitious case Commonwealth v Parry, Tatting J agrees that the interpretation of self defense provided by Foster J is supported, He cited that the 'taught doctrine' in law schools is that 'The man who acts to repel an aggressive threat to his own life does not act willfully, but in this case of the explorers, they 'acted not only willfully but with great deliberation In Tatting J's view, an alternative charge would have been more appropriate In the absence of an alternative, no charge should be been brought 'It is to be a matter of regret the Prosecutor saw fit to ask for an indictment for murder ' Tatting J withdrew from the decision of the case, 'wholly unable to resolve his doubts 4 Judgment of Keen J The Judge in his review of the case puts out two questions regarding the case at first sight, in his opinion, we aren't here to make decisions based on morality I would pardon entirely the defendants on the grounds that they had already suffered enough, but this is a remark made as a private citizen, not a judge He states that this case's decision is not about right or wrong, it is about upholding and applying the law of the land on a crime His statements referred to the decision of Lord Mustill's in R v Brown 1994 The court held (in a 3 2 majority) that consent was not a defence to assault The Judge states that the some of the opinions of his college Foster J reflect the element of fantasy put forward by Tatting J He stated that the main question is whether the crime was committed willfully In this case, the defendants willfully took the life of Roget Whetmore and any sound mind can observe that from the facts and statements in place He furthermore stated that the only obstacle in this case decision is failure to separate the legal and moral aspects of the case His Honour criticizes his fellow judges for shirking their responsibility to abide by the word of the law his Honour is determined to put personal views aside He stated that he does not believe the purpose needs to be explained any further than being a 'deeply felt human conviction that murder is wrong and that something should be done to the man who commits it ' He believed that inquiry should not be directed towards the purpose of the statute, but towards its scope and likewise with exceptions The actions of the defendants clearly fall within the scope of the statutory provision A hard decision is never a popular decision Keen J firmly states 'judicial dispensation does more harm in the long 5 Judgment of Handy J Handy J holds the case to be one of the applications of 'practical wisdom' not 'abstract theory', and 'one of the easiest to decide' Government is 'a human affair' in which people 'are ruled well when their rulers understand the feelings and conceptions of the masses ' Of all branches of the government, the judiciary is the most likely to lose its contact with the common man When a set of facts has been subject to judicial treatment for a sufficient time, all the life and juice have gone out of it and we have left a a handful of dust Handy J discusses at length the publicity surrounding the trial, as well as indications of public opinion (90 of respondents to a major poll believed the explorers should be pardoned or given a token punishment) Between the judiciary and public opinion, a declaration of innocence ought to be made Handy J lists four means of escaping punishment ( ) a determination by a judge that the accused has committed no crime, ( ) a decision by the prosecutor not to ask for an indictment, ( ) an acquittal by a jury, or ( ) a pardon or commutation by the executive He concludes that by taking a common sense approach that considers his above discussion, the defendants are innocent and the conviction should be set aside Conclusion Tatting J was asked by the Chief Justice whether he wanted to reexamine his position, but his Honour declined and affirmed he would not participate in the case The Supreme Court, divided evenly, affirmed the conviction Fuller provides no further details as to the outcome

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Answered step by step

Verified Expert Solution

Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Jun 13, 2024

I need help summarizing the following to the point questions? IRAC model The Case of the Speluncean Explorers:[ IRAC Format ] Issue: A number of

I need help summarizing the following to the point questions? IRAC model

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers:[ IRAC Format ]

Issue:A number of cave explorers (spelunkers) are trapped by a landslide. Approaching starvation, they make radio contact with the rescue team. Engineers on the rescue team estimate that the rescue will take a further 10 days. After describing their situation to physicians, they are told it is unlikely that they will survive another 10 days without food. The explorers ask the physicians whether they would survive if they killed and ate one of their numbers. The physicians advise, reluctantly, that they would. When asked if they ought to hold a lottery to determine whom to kill and eat, no one on the rescue team is willing to advise. The radio is turned off, and later a lottery is held. The loser is killed and eaten. When they are rescued they are prosecuted for murder, for which, in the Commonwealth of Newgarth, a guilty verdict carries a mandatory sentence of capital punishment.
Relevant Law:Common law of England and Wales(Murder, Homicide, Manslaughter)
Applying the Law:There are multiple judgments over this case and we are going to brief them one by one.
[ 1 - Judgment of Truepenny CJ ]
When the case started defendants were treated for shock and after that, the hearing begins, Their early testimony was accepted by the jury in which they claimed that they decided to throw a dice that Whitmore had. for the decision about who to kill for food, and no one objected to it. The odds came against Whitmore and they approached and killed him as a result of that.
Based on that they were indicted for murder. At trial, prosecution, and defense accepted the charge of "guilty of murder". The trial judge sentenced them to mandatorycapital punishment of murder, to be hanged. Later on, the jury pleads to reduce the sentence to 6 months of prison and the trial judge accepted that. but Later Chief Justice Truepenny CJ upheld the conviction of capital punishment by saying justice can be done in this way, without disregarding either the letter or spirit of the law. Thus, Truepenny CJ upholds the conviction.
[ 2 - Judgment of Foster J ]
Foster J gave a review of these cases by stating some interpretations of the law & jurisdiction. some are given below
(-)The people in that cave were far out of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. The explorers were 'not in a "state of civil society" but in a "state of nature"' and consequently, the laws of the Commonwealth of Newgarth do not apply.
(-)The Judge argued that If it was proper that ... ten lives should be sacrificed to save the lives of five imprisoned explorers, why then are we told it was wrong for these explorers to carry out an arrangement that would save four lives at the cost of one?
(-)The judge stated thatA 'constitutional contract' does not operate the same as a civil contract, All of those men agreed to throw the dice and in that case, it becomes a civil contract unfavorably or may be against the law but it was within the reach of natural laws.
Foster J concludes that the conviction should be set aside.
[ 3 - Judgment of Tatting J ]
In Tatting J's review of the case, he cited that there is no clear basis for the decision that these men were somehow outside the jurisdiction of Common Law. In his view, It was impossible for Whetmore to act in self-defense as he made a bargain and he had to live up to that.
Tatting J finds that the criminal law related to murder couldn't have been a deterrent for those men as they were faced with a choice of an alternative of life or death. The case cited in this regard was the fictitious case Commonwealth v Parry,
Tatting J agrees that the interpretation of self-defense provided by Foster J is supported,
He cited that the 'taught doctrine' in law schools is that 'The man who acts to repel an aggressive threat to his own life does not act "willfully," but in this case of the explorers, they 'acted not only "willfully" but with great deliberation.In Tatting J's
view, an alternative charge would have been more appropriate. In the absence of an alternative, no charge should be been brought: 'It is to be a matter of regret the Prosecutor saw fit to ask for an indictment for murder.'
Tatting J withdrew from the decision of the case, 'wholly unable to resolve his doubts.
[ 4 - Judgment of Keen J ]
The Judge in his review of the case puts out two questions regarding the case at first sight, in his opinion, we aren't here to make decisions based on morality. I would pardon entirely the defendants on the grounds that they had already suffered enough, but this is a remark made as a private citizen, not a judge.
He states that this case's decision is not about right or wrong, it is about upholding and applying the law of the land on a crime. His statements referred to the decision ofLord Mustill's in R v Brown[1994] The court held (in a 3-2 majority) that consent was not a defence to assault.
The Judge states that the some of the opinions of his college Foster J reflect the element of fantasy put forward by Tatting J. He stated that the main question is whether the crime was committed willfully?. In this case, the defendants willfully took the life of Roget Whetmore and any sound mind can observe that from the facts and statements in place.
He furthermore stated that the only obstacle in this case decision is failure to separate the legal and moral aspects of the case. His Honour criticizes his fellow judges for shirking their responsibility to abide by the word of the law; his Honour is determined to put personal views aside.
He stated that he does not believe the purpose needs to be explained any further than being a 'deeply-felt human conviction that murder is wrong and that something should be done to the man who commits it.'
He believed that inquiry should not be directed towards the purpose of the statute, but towards its scope; and likewise with exceptions. The actions of the defendants clearly fall within the scope of the statutory provision.
A hard decision is never a popular decision. Keen J firmly states 'judicial dispensation does more harm in the long.
[ 5 - Judgment of Handy J ]
Handy J holds the case to be one of the applications of 'practical wisdom' not 'abstract theory', and 'one of the easiest to decide'. Government is 'a human affair' in which people 'are ruled well when their rulers understand the feelings and conceptions of the masses.'
Of all branches of the government, the judiciary is the most likely to lose its contact with the common man. ... When a set of facts has been subject to [judicial] treatment for a sufficient time, all the life and juice have gone out of it and we have left a
a handful of dust.
Handy J discusses at length the publicity surrounding the trial, as well as indications of public opinion (90% of respondents to a major poll believed the explorers should be pardoned or given a token punishment). Between the judiciary and public opinion, a declaration of innocence ought to be made.
Handy J lists four means of escaping punishment
(-)a determination by a judge that the accused has committed no crime,
(-)a decision by the prosecutor not to ask for an indictment,
(-)an acquittal by a jury, or
(-)a pardon or commutation by the executive
He concludes that by taking a common-sense approach that considers his above discussion, the defendants are innocent and the conviction should be set aside.
Conclusion:Tatting J was asked by the Chief Justice whether he wanted to reexamine his position, but his Honour declined and affirmed he would not participate in the case. The Supreme Court, divided evenly, affirmed the conviction. Fuller provides no further details as to the outcome.