• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

critical evalution of murder

Extracts from this document...


How satisfactory is the current law on murder? The current law on murder is relatively satisfactory although improvements do need to be made. One of the existing problems concerns the mens rea of the crime. In some ways it can be considered to broad. A person who kills someone else but only intended to cause grievous bodily harm, but not to kill, can be convicted of murder even if they didn't foresee that death could have been a result of their actions. This was the case in R v Cunningham [1981] where the defendant hit the victim again and again with a chair and eventually they died. The defendant was convicted of murder even though he argued that he had not intended to kill. The House of Lords agreed with the trial judge's direction to the jury that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm was sufficient mens rea to uphold a conviction for murder if the victim dies of his injuries. ...read more.


Recent news pictures have shown startling images of 12 week old foetuses moving about in the womb and showing strong resemblances to a 'real baby' rather than a group of cells. All this demonstrates that foetuses should be included within the actus reus of murder. However, there are a number of different offences to cover the harm of unborn babies. Under s.58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, it is a crime for a mother to try and induce a miscarriage and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 states that the intentional killing of a foetus that is capable of being born life but hasn't been yet, is an offence. The judge in Rance v Mid-Downs HA [1991] went as far as to say that once the foetus had developed to such a stage that it could be born breathing using its own lungs and independent from its mother, then the destruction of it would be illegal. ...read more.


However, Lord Bingham argues that abolishing the mandatory life sentence would allow judges to be more leniently. There are problems with each argument but something needs to be done to make the law fairer. Perhaps the answer is to create separate offences rather than the single crime of murder. But how could you classify all of the different types of murder and the motives behind them? The most appropriate suggestion seems to be to abolish the mandatory life sentence and allow the jury some discretion in deciding how serious they think the murder is therefore helping the judge to pass a suitable sentence. All in all the current law on murder is fairly satisfactory although the problems raised need to be dealt with so that everyone who has committed this offence can be treated fairly with respect to the type of murder they have carried out and their motives behind it. The law also needs to be amended so that every victim of murder (e.g. a foetus) is treated equally. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    The spectator is deemed to accept 'risks incidental to the game' and this can be seen in cases surrounding the Hillsborough disaster as shown in Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] 1 WLR 814. In the case of Murray v Harringay a six year old boy was injured by a puck at a hockey match.

  2. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    which causes actual bodily harm to the victim. This may involve the victim suffering an injury which may require hospital treatment such as stitches. The mens rea for this offence is either intention to put the victim in fear or Cunningham recklessness as to the putting of the victim in fear leading to ABH or intention to apply


    The question is, is it sufficient to constitute 'novus actus interveniens' to enable the law to say Tom is not legally liable to have caused Sara's death. The test that would be applied here would be the Smith's test - was the injury that resulted from Tom's act the operating

  2. Murder, manslaughter, assaults, sexual offences and defences.

    not merely some injury or wound. If this ulterior intention can be shown, the prosecution have also established that the grievous bodily harm was caused maliciously. (R v Cunningham (1981) HL: - Mens rea of murder - intention to commit homicide or grievous bodily harm). Lord Hailsham LC: 'Malice aforethought has never been limited to the intention to kill or to endanger life'.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    such time as the car was removed from the police constables foot. Thus as the actus reus continued the subsequent mens rea existed at the same time as the actus reus even though it was not at its inception. A conviction was then made and an important point in law was also set out.

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    If he foresaw death as virtually certain, this is a matter of factual evidence from which the jury may infer that the defendant intended that death.code der sededew orde dek inde fode de. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 supported these more recent decisions:codd ddr seddddw ordd ddk indd fodd dd!

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    Naturally, he was found guilty of attempted murder. One very important point here: the test for causation in law is that the actus reus must have been the substantial and operating cause of the victim's death. So, what does 'substantial' mean?

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    If an injury would have occurred independent of the defendant's conduct, cause in fact has not been established, and no tort has been committed. When multiple factors have led to a particular injury, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the tortfeasor's action played a substantial role in causing the injury.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work