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

Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

A level law homework 2 Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter The offence, which Don has committed, is murder because the initial injuries in which Don caused to Tim are thought to have been the main aspect of why Tim died. The definition of murder is, 'the unlawful killing of a living human being, under the Queens peace with malice aforethought.' The definition of murder is then broken down into two separate parts. The first being the Actus reus of the offence which means the guilty act and the second part is the Mens rea which is the guilty state of mind in which the defendant caused harm to the victim. The actus Reus is therefore, the unlawful killing that in Dons case is murder, of a living human being this is fulfilled because Tim was alive at the time of the accident and under the Queens peace which means that everyone in the country is under the Queens laws so this was fulfilled. The mens rea of the offence is the malice aforethought which means an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). ...read more.

Middle

As a result Don is not liable for murder but liable for the lesser offence or Manslaughter. He cannot plead voluntary manslaughter because he has no mens rea for the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This means that he is liable under involuntary manslaughter. There are two suitable types of involuntary manslaughter, which Don can plead: The first is constructive manslaughter otherwise known as unlawful act manslaughter. For the defendant to successfully plead this type of manslaughter there is four stages that need to be proved, there has to be an unlawful act. The authority for the unlawful act is R V MITCHELL or CHURCH. In Dons case the unlawful act, which he caused, was assault. The act also has to be dangerous and the reasonable man test is used to decide this. The authority for the dangerousness is R V DAWSON. Dons act then has to be the substantial cause of death this is shown through the two types of causation, which are in fact, and in law, however there has to be no breaks in the chain of causation R V GOODFELLOW and CATO. ...read more.

Conclusion

Don owed a duty of care to Tim because he was a driver who created a dangerous situation. He owed a duty to Tim as a pedestrian and breached this duty. Don breached his duty of care to Tim because he wasn't watching where he was driving and failed to stop and help Tim. He fell below the standard of the reasonable man in the reasonable man test. R v Miller By breaching his duty of care and taking his eyes of the road he caused Tim's death as a direct consequence of his actions. I believe that Don was so grossly negligent that the jury will consider it a criminal punishment because as a driver he needed to be prepared to stop suddenly or brake harshly in case of an emergency and he failed to do so making him negligent but, due to him driving off and not stopping to help Tim makes it grossly negligent so much that the jury would consider it a criminal punishment. I think the most suitable defence would be gross negligence manslaughter because as a driver he broke his duty of care and this breach caused the death of Tim. ...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)

    He was sentenced to four months in jail but this was later reduced to 28 days. Also in the case of R v Blissett (the independent) 4/12/1992 in the course of a challenge during a football match the victim sustained a fractured cheekbone and eye socket, the defendant was cleared of violent conduct.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    The company who failed to secure the tap properly is also liable as it is there actions which initiated the chain of causation which led to the offence. Causation can be said to have begun with R. v Thabo Meli and R.

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

    Some crimes require particular kinds of intention or knowledge. Foucault oppressed ace_16k's postmodernism idea. Kenny's view was also that: no external behaviour, though grave or even serious its consequences may have been, is ever penalizing unless it is formed by some form of mens rea.

  2. Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter

    may be found guilty of murder but a person who plants a bomb and gives warning (but someone dies in the blast) will not be liable as he did not intend to kill so does not have the sufficient Mens rea.

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    Now the general rule about drunkenness is that if you are so drunk so that you do not form the intent necessary, then you are entitled to be acquitted. However, the rule in Majewski (1976) goes on to say that this only applies to offences involving specific intent and not to those requiring basic intent.

  2. Any crime in law is made up of two elements, the actus reus which ...

    There is no need for contact, the actus reus is committed when the defendant does any act which causes the other person to believe that unlawful force is about to be used against them. Examples of the act include threatening with a fist or a cane or any other weapon,

  1. Involuntary Manslaughter

    The unlawful act must cause the death. The normal rules of causation apply; the act must be the physical and legal cause of death.

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

    put themselves at risk as a result of committing a heroic act?. Therefore, Sam?s employer is not liable for his injury concerning to his health and safety. Conclusion: Anthony and Maria are liable for the injury of Sam and the death of Hugh.

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