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

murder. In this case the accused, Mr Cheatham stabbed his wife, three old year old daughter and three month old daughter numerous times.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Introduction In this case the accused, Mr Cheatham stabbed his wife, three old year old daughter and three month old daughter numerous times. His wife and older daughter died from their wounds but skilled surgery managed to save the life of his three-month-old daughter. The prosecution would want to try the accused for two counts of murder (of his wife and older child) and one count of attempted murder (the younger child). However, the accused may be able to argue the defence of insanity, or in the alternative, diminished responsibility, which would result in either acquittal or a murder conviction being reduced to manslaughter. Firstly what the prosecution must prove to gain a conviction on the charges will be discussed. Secondly what the defence must prove in order to escape conviction will be discussed. Last of all the two different cases will be assessed and which case appears to be the stronger side will be suggested. The relevant jurisdiction has been assumed to be the Australian Capital Territory, and all referred legislation references in this paper are Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) unless otherwise specified. 1. MURDER In order for the accused to be convicted of murder of his wife and 3-year-old child, the prosecution will need to prove: (a)That the accused did an act which caused the death of the two victims; and (b)The accused did so with: i. ...read more.

Middle

It was the last possible act." In this case it could be said the accused's acts were sufficiently proximate and fulfilled the 'last act' test, as there was no more that the accused could do to complete the murder. The accused had taken all possible steps to murder his daughter, it was only the end result that did not work out. 2. INSANITY In order for the accused to be acquitted for the murders and attempted murder on the grounds of insanity, the defence will need to prove: (a) That the accused had a mental dysfunction that affects a person to a substantially disabling degree); and (b) The accused was incapable of knowing: i. what he was doing, or ii. that his actions were wrong. (Section 428) The court will leave the first question to be decided by the jury, on the basis of expert medical evidence. This is largely a matter of fact, and the defence will put forward the evidence of Dr Milton to show the accused was suffering from a mental dysfunction, namely hypochondriasis. The defence will then need to show the accused was acting under such defect of reason that he did not know his actions were wrong, or the accused did not have the capacity to reason and think with sense and composure. (M'Naghten [1983] 8 ER 718 at 722 ) ...read more.

Conclusion

3. WHICH CASE IS STRONGER? The prosecutions case may appear stronger and their case already proven, as it is fair to say that the accused killed, (or attempted to kill), his wife and two children. He fulfilled all the elements required for a conviction of murder and attempted murder. The accused made the appropriate actions towards killing his family and he also showed intent, firstly by expressing his intent, stabbing them numerous times and lastly being 'visibly distressed' when he found out that his youngest daughter was still alive. The defence need to prove insanity or diminished responsibility only on the balance of probabilities. But at the same time the prosecution must shed doubt upon the defence's case. Insanity will result in full acquittal whereas diminished responsibility will result in a murder conviction being dropped to manslaughter. I believe that the accused has a strong case to argue on not guilty on the grounds of insanity, as based on expert witnesses,(DR Milton) I think it can be proven that the level of the accsued's hypochondriasis rendered him insane, as no sane person or 'reasonable man' would kill their family even under the same circumstances. I do not think the accused was acting as a reasonable man and I believe that his delusions caused by his hypochondriasis were so great that it can be proven that he was probably insane. The accused I believe he did not know the quality of his actions. Therefore I believe that the accused should be acquitted on the grounds of insanity. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law 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 GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Evidence - R v Kearley

    5 star(s)

    It is submitted that this view is entirely correct. It is difficult to see any truth or fallacy in what was said to the police officers. A similar point is made by Pattenden25. According to her a 'purely conceptual view of hearsay, a non-narrative statement can not be hearsay, since a statement which does not state facts can not itself be literally true'.

  2. Discuss the persuasive techniques used by Michael Moore in three scenes from his film ...

    it means that it has a bigger impact on the viewer as they can hear the emotion and fear in the voices of the victims. This persuades the viewer that gun laws are too lax, as firearms have caused people to be put in such a state of panic and fear and that is not something that is desired.

  1. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    AG Ref (No 6) (1980) - Case involved 2 youths who wanted to settle a dispute via a fist fight. They said they should be able to do this because of the sport of boxing. The COA said Donovan was correct therefore guilty R v Jones (1987)

  2. What is an indictable offence and how is it brought to trial?

    is binding. It has a distinction, which is that the parties in dispute agree to accept as binding the decision of an independent third party, and to waive other rights of action. The parties may include an Arbitration clause in their original contract, committing themselves to accept Arbitration should the

  1. The Age Of Criminal Responsibility

    This report was based on one question, "The age of criminal responsibility in England is 10, which allowed James Buglers' killers to be prosecuted. Should it be altered?" (Diane Taylor) This question was put to a specific few people who I will name below including their responses: Dr Ann Hagell

  2. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    The bank claimed that the stop-payment order had expired and it had paid the stale check in good faith. Decision and Rationale: Hempstead Bank was legally justified in paying the check when presented and therefore it did not have to reimburse - Granite's account.

  1. LAW OF TORTS II

    R O M E O (1998) 192 CLR 431 Romeo (1998) 192 CLR 431, unlike Cattanach (2003) 215 CLR 1, deals with an issue of society in more broad terms. The issue in Romeo (1998) 192 CLR 431, was whether or not the Commission was to be held negligent for failing to erect a fence at the edge of a popular cliff face.

  2. The case R.V Machekequonabe, a pagan Indian prisoner.

    The answer is simple yes, all the facts point to the conclusion that Machekequonabe shot and killed his foster father. A second question requires a little more explanation. Did Machekequonabe have believe that what he was shooting was a wendigo?

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