• 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)

    It was held to be negligent in this case as the medical attention was insufficient. However this may just be in the case of a boxer and the nature of the sport. Medical negligence in general is difficult to prove especially in sport which may indicate that this is a one off case.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    defence it could only arise from an abnormality of the mind, which is induced by the disease of alcoholism, which impaired mental responsibility substantially. In R v. Dietschmann, Lord Hutton stated that there are two circumstances where the effects of alcohol can be regarded as an abnormality of the mind,

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

    Traditionally, the requirement of the guilty mind is written into the actual definition of a crime. No guilty intention, no crime, is the rule. This work from www.coursework.info In conclusion, to the above discussions, it would be obviously insufficient for a legal system to have a solitary offence stating that

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

    throwing a stone or other missile or pointing a loaded gun with someone at rage. There is no assault if the victim if it is obvious to the victim that the defendant is unable to carry out the threat of violence, however if violence is possible then the fact that

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    rea should be present at the inception of the actus reus; it can be superimposed on an existing act." The judgement established that the battery on the police constable (the actus reus) was a continuing act which was not complete until the battery ceased i.e.

  2. Cases on provocation

    battered V some twenty times with a heavy ashtray and killed him. At his trial for murder, D claimed provocation. The judge told the jury to consider the effect V's drunken remark would have had on a reasonable sober person, and the jury convicted.

  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