CRIMINAL LAW SUMMATIVE 17-02-2015
A. Introduction
This essay concerns liability in homicide in English law. Divided in two parts, this essay will discuss the actus reus causality, mens rea, partial defences, and establish liability under unlawful act manslaughter as likely for both defendants, in light of given facts, statutory law, common law, and legal theory.
B. PART I – PHILLIP - Actus Reus
LJ Coke’s definition of murder can be summarized in common law as “the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace” . Unlawful killing can be committed by an act or an omission to act. In order to be convicted of a murder charge, the prosecution must prove both the actus
…show more content…
This would fail as there is no evidence of Phillip being intoxicated as in Dietschman and Dowds, and if there were, such a defence failed in both cases. The second defence was called provocation under the Homicide Act 1957 and is now called loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Primarily applicable to crimes of passion, the “reasonable man” debate from Lesbini 1914 is now subject to two qualifying triggers under the 2009 Act. First, Phillip must apprehend violence, secondly, the circumstances must be of extremely grave character and Phillip must have a justified sense of being seriously wronged . The banality of Phillips situation cannot satisfy either. As in Ahluwalia , the passage of time between the previous night’s loud noise and the death erodes the sincerity of the defence . The defence of suicide pact is irrelevant and would not be …show more content…
Prima facie, Tessa’s interaction was the factual and legal causation of Doris’ heart attack. However, it is necessary to demonstrate that Tessa “accelerated the victim’s death by more than a negligible amount”. It is not necessarily true that “but for” Tessa’s attempt to grab Doris’ phone, she would not have suffered the harm that caused her death, so proper defence may cause the factual causality test in Dyson and White to fail. Moreover, the defence can likely erode certainty pertaining to legal causality. Tessa’s act must be a “substantial” cause of the result, and not a “slight or trifling link”. The court may find the act is de minimis. Tessa’s act must also be the operating cause of the death. Based on evidence submitted, the court could find the defendants act was entirely unconnected with the heart attack, or wholly responsible. If the latter, the actus reus for murder and manslaughter would be satisfied, and mens rea and defences would determine.
However, Doris’ pre-existing condition is subject to the “thin skull rule”, the maxim that the defendant “take their victims as they find them”. In Hayward, the fact the wife’s death was from a medical condition was ruled irrelevant, as Tessa’s ignorance of Doris’ condition would be . Theorist Klimchuk argues the thin skull rule is an exception to the reasonable foreseeability test and rooted in Kantian
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Without clarifying the instruction, it was suggested that if the behavior is not what a reasonable person would consider to be a “normal consequence” of the situation created by defendant's conduct, then said intervening act is a superseding cause. Consequently, it does not convey the relevant standard—whether the probability of harm is “sufficiently serious that a reasonable and prudent person would take precautions to avoid it.” (Iturralde, 2013)
When a death occurs suddenly, unexpectedly and from unnatural or unknown causes, a forensic scientist has the duty to gather and analyze evidence to determine whether the victim died from a previously undiagnosed disease or infection or from a homicide, suicide or accident (Lurigio, 2009). When considering suicide as the probable cause of death, we are looking at the act of intentionally killing oneself through one’s own effort or with the assistance of another (Sever, 2009). The resolution of the manner of death by a forensic pathologist as suicide is based on a series of factors which eliminate natural causes of death, homicide and accident (Geberth, 2013, p.55). The cause of death is also determined by the medical examiner in conjunction with the crime scene investigator; however, it can only be determined after a thorough investigation is concluded. Therefore, in the complicated process of doing a death investigation there are several mistakes that should be avoided, which are discussed in Geberth’s article, Seven Mistakes in Suicide Investigation (2013). Mistakes in doing any death investigation affect the integrity of the evidence in determining the cause of death and in its admissibility in court.
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
In the case of Norton vs Argonaut Insurance Company there are many factors which impacted the court’s ruling as to the parties who were responsible resultant wrongful death of the infant Robyn Bernice Norton. The nurses, doctors(independent contractors) and the the hospital though not formally charged
The defendant was a jealous woman who had been romantically involved with a man, Mr Jones, who had then gone on to have a relationship with another woman, Ms Booth, who he later became engaged to in the spring of 1971. The defendant, as a result, went to Ms Booth’s home and poured petrol through her letterbox, she then put newspaper, which she set on fire through also. This quickly ignited and the defendant went straight home without alerting anyone to the blaze, which was spreading. Although Ms Booth and her son were able to escape through a window, her two daughters perished, as they were asphyiciated by the fumes from the flames, which were engulfing their house as they slept. The defendant argued that she was not guilty of murder as she did not intend on causing harm or killing anyone, she had just wanted to frighten Ms Booth and as a result should only be found guilty of manslaughter.
Causation: The act must have been the cause of the harm expressed in the crime (injury). In criminal law, the actus rea “an action” which the specific injury or effect is combined with mens rea “state of mind” to comprise the elements of guilt. An example of this is a person speeding in a work zone striking and injuring several workers.
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.
Introduction Henry has suffered serious injuries as a result of Samuel’s conduct, and he may therefore have an action in battery or false imprisonment against Samuel. The issues will be considered to evaluate Henry’s actions against Samuel, determine any defence Samuel has to Henry’s claims, and to assess the award of any damages. False Imprisonment False imprisonment is the direct, intentional, or negligent confinement of a person within an area (determined by the perpetrator) without lawful excuse or justification. In the case of Henry v Samuel, there are two instances arising from the facts which could constitute the action in false imprisonment.
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
Murder: The offence of murder is an example of unlawful homicide; it is defined by Sir Coke as the "unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being, who is under the [Queen's] peace, with malice aforethought, express or implied." The actus reus of murder is the "unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being, who in under the monarch's peace". To break it down: An unlawful killing is, quite simply, a person causing that is not allowed in law.
Murder is when someone kills another person with malice aforethought. Negligent homicide is when a person kills another person, without meaning too, while behaving in a careless way (Bartol & Bartol, 2014). The difference between the two is the intention of the person who carries out the murder. Murder is done with the purpose to end someone’s life. Negligent homicide occurs from the person’s actions, even though they did not intend to kill anyone.
Murder - Without Book or Card: Murder is regarded by many as the most immoral crime a person can commit; in a legal setting it is an example of unlawful killing and is defined, by Sir Coke, as "the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being who is under the [monarch's] peace, with malice aforethought, express or implied". The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being who is under the monarch's peace. To break it down:
Attempted murder, involved the voluntary act of Jack pointing a gun and firing it (act) at Bert that resulted in (causation) death of Pratt (social harm), which proves the elements of actus reus. ...
• That the defendant’s mental condition, at the time of killing rendered the perpetrator to decide any right or wrong and what he/she was doing was wrong. UNINTENTIONAL MURDER:- In many countries for a killing to get considered as murder, there must be some element of intent. But in this condition also a defendant may argue that he/she took precautions not to kill, that at that time death was unavoidable .As a general rule it is considered that manslaughter constitutes reckless killing of any being but manslaughter also includes criminally negligent homicide.