• 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...


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.


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.


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)

    In the case of Watson and Bradford City FC v Gray and Huddersfield Town Association (1998) QBD there was a successful claim in negligence where a broken leg had been sustained as a result of a challenge by another player.

  2. Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter

    It also can be said that it discriminates against women as women don't usually snap but their anger builds up. This has been considered in R V Thornton, R V Ahluwalia and R V Humphries. In R V Ahluwalia it was said that sudden does not mean the same as

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    At common law, it applied to the offence of manslaughter which, until 1994, could be committed 'recklessly' but the House of Lords decision in Adomako means that we now apply a test of gross negligence. Thus, in considering the standards, which the courts use to assess blame and impose criminal

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    as he had started a chain of causation by putting the cyanide in her drink and that chain could not be broken by her dying before she drank it. While her natural death formed a novus actus interveniens10 and excused the defendant from murder it did not excuse him from

  1. Involuntary Manslaughter

    The breach of duty can be committed by an act or an omission, which does not have to be unlawful. The leading case on gross negligence manslaughter is ADOMAKO (1994). The actus reus of gross negligence manslaughter is: - the existence of a duty of care towards the victim -

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

    Even if a man should kill his terminally wife to end her suffering (his 'motive'), his intention to kill her counts as the mens rea for murder (Cocker [1989]).

  1. Involuntary Manslaughter

    The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. The act need not even be directed at a person, it can be aimed at property, provided it is dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause harm to another, as shown in Goodfellow.

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

    However, his employer can advocates that Titus was just doing what is right and necessary as a fireman would do in such emergence circumstance. Moreover the opened oil can was unforeseeable, and the can would ignite fire sooner or later regardless the action of Titus because it was opened.

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