Lamont V Strathern Analysis

When discussing criminal responsibility, moral responsibility will always play a part within the analysis. One of the main theories in regard to moral responsibility which relates directly with criminal responsibility, is the concept of moral luck. This theory will be assessed further within this paper, with reference to relevant case law.
Typically, we associate responsibility with a voluntary actions. Therefore, blame tends to be assigned to the individual when they voluntarily carry out an act and have awareness of the possible consequences which are associated with the action they are carrying out. In some scenarios, individuals may not have full control over their actions. For example, in regards to the legal system, a plea of provocation …show more content…
One of which being the case Lamont v Strathern . Here, it was proven that the accused put his hand towards an individual’s pocket with the intention of stealing money. However, it was not proven whether there was in fact anything within the pocket which the accused could have taken possession of.
It was argued that the accused could not be charged with theft due to a lack of proof that he had physically stolen from the pursuer. This argument mirrors the objective approach as it looks directly to the reality of the situation. If the pockets of the man were empty, it is impossible for any theft to have taken place and therefore it is argued that the accused cannot and should not be found guilty.
However, the court opted for the subjective approach. The court looked through the perspective of the accused at that moment of time. The fact that there was nothing within the pocket for the accused to steal was something which was out of the accused control, which may be described as moral luck. If there were something within the pocket, the accused would have completed the crime and therefore was willing to cause criminal harm. It was held sufficient to justify a conviction of attempted theft as the accused had reason to believe that there may have been something to take possession of within the pocket and therefore had sufficient mens …show more content…
It was held that an allegation of pregnancy was an essential part of a charge of attempting to procure abortion. It was held that to attempt something which is physically impossible cannot be a crime. Through the objective stance, the court ignored the fact that the accused was willing to carry out criminal harm. The fact that the individual was not pregnant was something which the accused was not aware of and was something which was out with her control and through the use of the objective approach, the accused was found not to be criminally