The offence Harry would be charged with is William’s murder. The area of Law that this case is concerned with is criminal law (homicide). The two offences that constitute homicide are murder and manslaughter. The classic definition of murder was set by Sir Edward Coke (Institutes of the Laws of England, 1797). Murder is defined by the Law as causing the death of a human being within the Queen’s peace with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. It comprises of 2 elements. These are the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (intention). The actus reus and causation are the first elements that need to be satisfied. The defendant, Harry in this case must be proved to have caused the victim’s death. In this instance two matters need to be considered. Whether the defendant in fact caused the victim’s death and if so, if it can he be held to have caused it in the eyes of the law. Regarding causation in law, in R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 it was held that ‘the defendant’s act would be regarded as the cause in Law, if it could be shown that it was the operating and substantial cause of death,’ which we see here. It is clearly illustrated that Harry in fact, caused William’s death instantly by driving the lemon slicer into his heart. According to the Court of Appeal in R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 and R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 the issue of factual causation is mainly one for the jury once it has been determined by the courts that there is enough evidence to be left to them and this can be established through the ‘but for’ test. However there appears to be no issues regarding causation in this case because William’s death is caused instantly by Harry. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and in criminal p... ... middle of paper ... ...dy [1989] 1 WLR 350 R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664 R v Woollin [1999] AC 82 Secondary Sources Books FINCH E, FAFINSKI S (2007) Criminal Law Pearson Education Unlimited GLAEBROOK P.R (2003) Statutes on Criminal Law 2003-2004 13th Edition, Oxford University Press HERRING, J (2001) Criminal Law 7th Edition, Palgrave Macmillan ORMEROD, D. (2011) Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law 13th Edition, Oxford University Press Online Resources Criminal Evidence (2010) [Online] Available from - http://crimeandevidence.wordpress.com/category/stuart/ [Accessed 7th March 2014] E-Law resources, Causation in Criminal Liability [Online] Available from - http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-criminal-liability.php [Accessed 8th March 2014] Law Teacher, Homicide – Murder [Online] Available from - http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/murder.php [Accessed 8th March 2014]
Causation is the cause of death, and in criminal law it is the connecting of conduct and physiological behaviour with a resulting effect, typically a serious injury or death. The analysis of the actus rea and mens read of the accused will assist the investigators in pinpointing the causation of the murder. In criminal law it is absolutely necessary to prove causation in order to convict an individual for first degree murder.
Brody, D., & Acker, J. (2010). Criminal Law (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Nearly every aspect of law enforcement has a court decision that governs criteria. Most court rulings are the result of civil lawsuit towards a police officer and agency. However, currently, there is no law that mandates law enforcement driver training. When it comes to firearms, negligence by officers has resulted in a multitude of court rulings. Popow v. City of Margate, 1979, is a particularly interesting case that outlines failed firearms training by an agency. In this case, an officer chasing a suspect during a foot pursuit fired at the suspect, striking and killing an innocent bystander (Justia.com, 2017). The court ruled that the agency was “grossly negligent” of “failure to train” (Justia.com, 2017). As a result, nearly every agency requires annual firearms training and has written policy concerning the same. Officers must show proficiency in firearms use every year to maintain their certification. Many states even impose fines on officers for
Ever since the start of using courts, the main goal of it was to deliver a fair environment where the accused could defend themselves and show the jurors that he/ she did not commit the crime that they were accused of. Sometimes this system fails us and they sentence an innocent man to jail for something they didn’t commit. The activity that I observed in the field of criminal justice was I went to the boulder court house and watched one of the cases that’s was happening that day. As I sat there watching I saw the defendant’s lawyer trying to convince the jurors that his client was innocent, I thought to myself: how can we improve the court room. Sometimes we see some cases where the criminal can be let go because of not a lot of evidence like Casey Anthony. We also might see that the case might be unfair to person being convicted of a crime that they didn’t do. An example of this is the jurors have some past experience with a person of that race and they don’t like them or they already come with a decision before they even hear the evidence found. We might also see a case where the jurors decide that the accuser is innocent even though there’s evidence that proves otherwise. The main point is how we can make
In order to be convicted on a criminal charge, proof is required of three things; actus reus, mens rea and causation. The accused must have the criminal state of mind relevant to the crime he is accused of. Intention is a far more blameworthy aspect than recklessness,
The role of criminal justice professionals is to preserve and uphold the Constitution by enforcing laws, protecting citizen’s rights and promoting justice for all. Police officers in the field of duty must be able to discern situations to be able to act in the most appropriate manner as it relates to their job. In this case study, Officer Smith is threatened with being penalized for making a decision he thinks is good community policing, but his Lieutenant feels he violated protocol. Officer Smith responds to a domestic dispute between an intoxicated husband and wife. Normal procedure would be to arrest the husband and put him in jail until the decision is made whether or not to press charges. Instead, Officer Smith decides to intervene and asks the couple questions about if they love each other, and why they are physically assaulting each other. They respond they do love each other, but the alcohol makes them violent towards one another. Officer Smith then recommends counseling for the couple, as an alternative to putting the husband in jail. The couple agrees to
This paper will discuss how the courts use the concept of duty of care in the English legal system to limit liability and how through case law they have created specific principles and standard tests which have placed limits on dealing with negligence.
Manslaughter is: The baseless, unpardonable, and deliberate slaughtering of a person without consultation, intention, and malevolence. The unlawful executing of an individual with no thought, which may be automatic, in the commission of a legal demonstration without due alert and caution.
This assignment will evaluate murder, Homicide and will focus specifically on gross negligence manslaughter and diminished responsibility. It will explain the key rules and cases that are relevant to this aspect of criminal law. It will explain some of the rules using relevant statutes and/or case law and will show how the courts apply the rules of an area of criminal law in order to find a defendant guilty of an offence. This will be followed by an analysis of a relevant case and the law and statutes that are applicable. This leads the assignment towards a description of defences a defendant could use when accused of a gross negligence manslaughter. The final part of the assignment will be orientated towards changes made in the law over
In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti...
This case found the law had taken a wrong turn and hence removed JEL. This meant liability as an accomplice requires intention to aid or encourage, with foresight merely acting as evidence of this intention. This case also established that recklessness, as raised within Carter v. Richardson , is not sufficient for the mens rea of accomplice liability. Knowledge or foresight of the offence committed is required for liability. Had this case occurred prior to Jogee the judgement in 2016, where JEL was still alive, the outcome of Selma’s secondary liability following Pauls rape of Victoria could be determined differently, although arguably would not be ultimately
The primary role of particular criminal justice agencies in the criminal court system is to make an appropriate, objective and determine decision while fulfilling their duties. For example, judges are able to interpret and apply law on particular circumstances; and police collect evidence and investigate crime through proper and legal ways, as they are all restrict to the legal regulation and bureaucratic administration (Findlay, Odgers, & Yeo, 2009, p. 21). To maintain the interests of defendants as well as public interest by avoiding innocent individual to a miscarriage of justice and giving a prompt and certain punishment to guilty individual, it is very important that each criminal justice agencies can fulfill their duties in a lawful manner, especially the legal representative. A legal representative is an individual representing defendant in court to defense and make decision for them, which means the legal representative is the only one stays at the same side as the defendant and cares the interests of the defendant. Therefore, in this report we will examine to what extent is the role of legal representation important in Local Court and Supreme Court.
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
Brenann J in He Kaw The v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 at 569, 570)
Urbas, G. (2000) ‘The Age of Criminal Responsibility’, Australian institute of criminology, trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, no.181., viewed 20 March 2015, 1.