(1) a. ‘To be liable for any homicide offence the defendant must cause the death of a human being’ Elliot and Quinn cited in The Open University ‘OU’ (2015a 2.3). The actus reus of murder involves three main elements. Causation, resulting in death and that the victim must be a human being. Causation includes factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation can be verified using the ‘but for’ test, such as the victim would not have died ‘but for’ the actions of the defendant. Legal causation is tested by distinguishing whether the act or omission by the defendant was an operative or significant cause of death. The modern mens rea as summarised by Elliot and Quinn (2012) Cited in OU (2015b 2.3) involves the ‘intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm’. This includes indirect intent, in that the outcome was virtually certain as well as direct intent, in that there was a desired outcome. It is the job of the judge, depending on the evidence presented to direct the jury on either the test of direct intention or test of indirect intention. To be convicted of murder the defendant must also be proven to be of ‘sound mind’. b) The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act …show more content…
Advice will also be provided on whether Snowdonia Camping Holidays Ltd has committed the offence of corporate manslaughter. References will be made to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMACHA 2007). References will also be made to the definition of murder and whether Mr Jones’ actions or omissions satisfy the criteria to be committed of the offence of murder. The important aspects of the facts are that two deaths occurred on the property of Snowdonia Camping Holidays Ltd, which is owned and managed by Mr Jones. It needs to be established from the facts what factors amounted to causing these deaths, why they occurred and who is
Murder should include the elements of purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances showing extreme indifference to the value of human life (Brody & Acker, 2010).
Actus Reus: It was never unclear if the accused was responsible for the act occurring. There were several eye witness testimonies placing her as the offender which was backed up by CCTV footage from a camera in the lane. Furthermore, at the beginning of the trial the offender pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of constructive manslaughter and that it was caused by reckless driving on her behalf. By claiming manslaughter the offender immediately takes full responsibility for the act regardless of what charge they are handed.
Corporate crime (state crimes) are invisible, they are either not persecuted or not seen as crime, this is because the state have the power to criminalize or decriminalize acts . The Hillsborough disaster is one of the most serious crimes in the UK which was not seen as a crime but rather labelled as an accidental death. This essay will present the facts and highlight the various legal issues with regards to the Hillsborough disaster that took place on 15 April 1989. It will first of all state the facts of the event, engaging the international human rights provision, domestic legislation and will further analyse the access to justice doctrine as regards to the Hillsborough case.
After a regular customer mixed up the cellar door to be the gentlemen’s toilets and after opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death.The man stayed undiscovered to anyone as the owner was away to attend a programme on wellbeing and security. The prosecution contended that the owner of the pub was culpable, notwithstanding him not being available at the time of the occurrence, as he had not put enough cautioning signs nor he did lock the cellar door. The court held that the defendant could have made obliged measures to diminish the crossing of customers through the basement door, which was just a step from the ladies’ restrooms. This was a fair instance of gross negligence manslaughter as there had been few incidents of clients being confused between the cellar door and the toilet door. Moreover, when the defendant had begun the business in 2009, he was mindful that the cellar door could be risky for customers coming to the
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
Actus Reus of Murder When a man of sound memory over the age of discretion unlawfully kills
“Whether a killer acted with the deliberation and premeditation required for first degree murder can only be determined on a case by case basis. The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder.”
The “mens rea” of first degree murder is that the person, with time and intent, planned out or premeditated the murder. The “actus reas” of first degree murder is the actual act of committing the murder after planning it (Lippman, 2006).
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
Held: Evidence would have been admissible as part of the res gestae because not only was there a close association in place and time between the statement and the shooting, but also the way in which the statement came to be made, in a call for the police and the tone of voice used showed intrinsically that the statement was being forced from the wife by an overwhelming pressure of contemporary events. 9 Res Gestae, Topic 3, Law of Evidence. Prepared by Ikram Abdul Sattar, 10. R v. Andrews [1987] 1 All ER 513 where the appellant and another man knocked on the door of the victim’s flat and when the victim opened it, the appellant stabbed him in the chest and stomach with a knife and the two men then robbed the flat.
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.
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.
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...
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.
A person who's accused of unlawful killing in a court of law may be faced with a manslaughter charge by the prosecutor. Since there are different scenario's in which a unlawful killing can occur, there are different charges that come with the type of circumstances that surround each case. That is, first and second degree murder charges come into play as the murderer in question will need to be measured up which will tell the public and or jury if his or her intension was premeditated or not. Moreover, the law uses a another general term called manslaughter which has it's own two divisions as well.