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

Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter

Extracts from this document...


Rudi Harnick U6G2 Unit 4 Essay Discuss the criticisms which may be made of the law on murder (including voluntary manslaughter) Contrary to Common Law murder is defined as the killing of a human being within the Queens Peace with malice aforethought and on conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. On the other hand voluntary manslaughter is a Common Law offence and carries up to life imprisonment. For both murder and voluntary manslaughter the Actus Reus is exactly the same: a voluntary act (or omission in some cases) that is the factual and legal cause of the death of a human being. In the UK there is no legal definition of death and this could lead to uncertainty when the jury is considering whether the defendant is guilty or not. Problems are yet to occur and even when the Criminal Law Committee considered this problem in 1980 they concluded that statute should not intervene. So the courts have continued to interpret the meaning of death where necessary. For example in R V Malcherek the court decided it was suitable to assume that death occurs when the victim is brain dead. ...read more.


Another problem that has occurred when establishing whether the defendant has the required Mens Rea is that it has proven hard to see whether intent was oblique or not as the definition established in R V Woolin is not very clear or thorough (the consequence was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that). Some people may find it injust that a defendant who intended to cause GBH will only be guilty of section 18 if the doctor saves the victims life but if the victim dies the defendant will be guilty of murder and will receive a mandatory life sentence. So he will be given a longer sentence even though his actions were the same. If there are mitigating circumstances the defendant can use the three partial defences (provocation, diminished responsibility, suicide pact) defined by the Homicide Act 1957 to reduce their liability to manslaughter. To see if the element of provocation can be satisfied we must see whether the provocative words or actions, where there was a sudden and temporary loss of self-control as in R V Duffy and we must also see if the reasonable man would of acted as the defendant did. ...read more.


There are a number of issues, which cause concern regarding a partial defence of diminished responsibility. A person may avoid being convicted of murder and get the conviction reduced to manslaughter if he can prove that at the time of the killing he was suffering from an abnormality of mind, whether caused by a defective development of the mind, an inherent cause or disease or injury, which was such as to successfully impair his responsibility for his action ( Section 2 Homicide Act 1957). Sometimes however the courts have found it hard to accept Diminished Responsibility as a defence as public opinion as sometimes been against it. For example in R V Sutcliffe the defendant was the "Yorkshire Ripper" and he was convicted of murder even though there was medical evidence that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. Also the meaning of "abnormality of mind" is not very clear as it does not mean abnormality of the brain so they cannot base it upon medical evidence. In some cases it has been questioned whether alcoholism can be used as a partial defence ( R V Tandy, R V Gitten and R V Deitschmann) but there is no specific test for this so the court must decide based on the circumstances. ...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. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    Two types of intention need to be discussed - Direct intention refers to the direct aim or purpose of a D's act, Oblique or indirect intention is where the D does not have a direct aim or purpose but is aware that harm is virtually certain.

  1. Fault Essay

    This is unlikely to break the chain as in Dear even when they choose not to get help and can go as far as reopening the wounds. It can argued that this is unjust as why should D remain liable even when a reasonable person would not be able to

  2. Cases on provocation

    R v Doughty (1986) 83 Cr App R 319, CA A man D killed his baby, and claimed he had been provoked by its constant crying. Quashing his conviction for murder and substituting a five-year sentence for manslaughter, Stocker LJ said the trial judge was bound by the plain words of the statute to leave this defence to the jury.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    This has facilitated many more defendants being tried for their crimes and also allowed juries to convict those who would have been acquitted on a technicality.

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

    that the defendant had had some foresight of the risk and yet had still deliberately gone ahead.cobd bdr sebdbdw orbd bdk inbd fobd bd. This was supported in R. v. Stephenson (1979) Q.B. 695, but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction with Lord Lane firstly looking at the recommendations

  1. Involuntary Manslaughter

    In essence this means that, somebody may commit what is seen as a minor offence, with only "some" risk of danger, not aimed at anybody, yet still commit constructive manslaughter. The earlier example used of a man flicking a cigarette but in a petrol station is a good example of this.

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

    Moreover, as selling chemicals, Chemi-Kaze PLC is placed strict liability, according to the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher: ?a person brings and keeps on land in his occupation anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril.

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