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

Vincent stabs Kay, she survives long enough to give birth to the infant, but dies a few weeks later. The baby survives for 140 days, and then also dies.a) Explain the offence with which Vincent may be charged in respect of the death of Kay

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Paper 2, November 1998, Question 6 Trina Soon Vincent and Kay live together. Kay becomes pregnant by another man, and Vincent cannot come to terms with this. The relationship becomes more and more strained until eventually, when Kay is 28 weeks pregnant, they have a violent argument and Vincent stabs Kay in the abdomen. She survives long enough to give birth to the infant, but dies a few weeks later. The baby survives for 140 days, and then also dies. a) Explain the offence with which Vincent may be charged in respect of the death of Kay (15) b) Explain the offence with which Vincent may be charged in respect of the death of the baby. (10) a. In relation to the death of Kay, there is the possibility that Vincent would be charged under homicide. Vincent has the pertinent actus reus of homicide, whereby he has committed an unlawful killing in the Queen's peace in the county of the realm and death occurs within 1 year and 1 day. ...read more.

Middle

It was held that intent couldn't be inferred unless the defendant appreciated that the consequence was a virtual certainty. As such, Vincent knew the consequences of his actions, and still had an intention to harm. Thus, he has the apt actus reus and mens rea, and can be charged for homicide. However, Vincent's charge for murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter, if he can prove any of the mitigating factors, namely diminished responsibility and provocation. According to Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, diminished responsibility is defined as an abnormal state of mind (at the time of murder) that does not constitute insanity. In R v. Byrne, it was held that diminished responsibility may be caused by disease, injury, mental sub normality, and covers conditions like depression, irresistible impulse and other inherent factors. The law on provocation is under Section 3 Homicide Act 1957. For the defense of provocation to succeed, there must have been some act(s) or word(s) of provocation, so that the defendant loses control. ...read more.

Conclusion

By stabbing Kay in the abdomen would unquestionably cause harm to both her and the baby. In R v. Woollin, the defendant killed his child by throwing him onto a hard surface, and it was held that intention can be found when the defendant foresaw the consequence as a virtually certain result of conduct. As such, Vincent's intention to harm is evident. However, it is not known if Vincent's rage was directed at Kay or at the baby. If it was directed at Kay, transferred malice is applicable here, as the actus reus is of the same type. Vincent's act and intention to harm Kay, is the same as the act to harm the baby, contrary to R v. Pembilton where the act is not the same. In R v. Latimer, the defendant used a belt to strike a man, but injured a woman next to him. It was held that if the defendant had the mens rea of a crime and causes the actus reus of that crime against another person, the original mens rea is transferred to the actual actus reus. As such, any intention Vincent had to harm Kay, can be transferred to the baby. 2 ...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 civil law for sporting claims is the same as that in any other civil claims. However claims in sport are few and far between. This is due to the fact that often sport generally or a particular club does not want any bad publicity as it a major part

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    Malcharek and Steel) the case of R v. Jordan being the exception as it has been shown that only in the most unusual cases, will medical treatment break the chain of causation. Involuntary manslaughter can be caused by either unlawful act (constructive)

  1. Involuntary manslaughter comprises the commission of the actus reus of homicide without malice aforethought, ...

    The other main type of involuntary manslaughter is gross negligence manslaughter. This is manslaughter caused by such disregard for life and safety of others (beyond mere tortious negligence) that it warrants punishment by the criminal law. This is also, where a defendant owes the victim a duty of care and

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    it is not necessary to prove which act it was which caused the death in order for a conviction to be successful.

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

    state of the law was flipped into some turmoil by the House of Lords. In Caldwell (1981). The accused was charged with two offences, the first under s.1 (1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 criminal damage, but also under s.1 (2)

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

    The actus reus of assault is the apprehension of immediate unlawful violence. The mens rea of assault is the intention to put the victim in fear of immediate unlawful physical harm or subjective recklessness as to whether they would fear immediate unlawful physical harm.

  1. In the scenario for this report the parties have committed certain crimes - give ...

    The polish and coffee is obviously classed as property and this is clearly set out in the theft act 1968 s.4 (1). The final constituent of the AR of theft is 'belonging to another'7.

  2. Cases on provocation

    Dismissing D's appeal, the Court of Appeal said that in ascribing to the reasonable man the characteristics of the defendant, only those characteristics which were reasonably permanent were to be considered, and any special characteristics were to be taken into account only where they related directly to the provocation.

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