• 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

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    Woolin stated that the jury are not entitled to "find" the necessary intention unless it was virtually certain that death or serious bodily harm would occur from D's action.

  2. Fault Essay

    Doctors who are generally acting in an emergency to save the life of the victim following an attack by the defendant (Cheshire; Smith etc). With regards to self neglect it is a question for the jury to decide as to who is at fault.

  1. Cases on provocation

    Provocation need not be unlawful in itself, and a baby's crying was undoubtedly "things done". Edwards v R [1973] 1 All ER 152, PC (Hong Kong) A blackmailer A went to V's hotel room in the early hours, after making a series of telephone calls, and pressed V for payment.

  2. Involuntary Manslaughter

    The unlawful act is only a minor offence, littering, and does not hold as much danger as say, pointing a loaded gun at somebody, yet D may be convicted all the same. The risk of harm refers to physical harm, something causing fear and apprehension in the victim is not enough.

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    An ordinary everyday event, you may think! In fact, the mother had died of a heart attack unconnected with the poison. Thus, the son was found not guilty of murder although the consequence of what the son had intended - his mother's death - had occurred.

  2. How do you feel the victims of abuse and violence who kill should be ...

    Kiranjit wanted to become a lawyer, but she had an arranged marriage to Deepak Ahluwalia of London, England, who lived with his mom. She had hoped to continue her education, but was prevented by Deepak, who became increasingly alcoholic, and abusive - both physically and verbally, even sexually molesting her, and having multiple relationships with other females.

  1. critical evalution of murder

    The Law Commission Draft Criminal Code recommends that the mens rea of murder should be intending to cause death or intending to cause serious injury and being aware that he may cause death. A defendant who intended to cause grievous bodily harm but was not aware that the victim could die would therefore be convicted of manslaughter instead.

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

    Employees must work safely in accordance with their training and instructions given to them. Employees must also notify the employer or the person responsible for health and safety of any serious or immediate danger to health and safety or any shortcoming in health and safety arrangements.

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