Homicide. Case Study of: Regina .v. Kiranjit Ahluwalia Overview of the case:

The Criminal Process

Case Study of: Regina .v. Kiranjit Ahluwalia

Overview of the case:

The defendant, Kiranjit Ahluwalia, entered into an arranged marriage and suffered years of abuse from her husband. In May 1989 she threw petrol over him while he was in his bedroom and set it alight. Her husband died six days later of his burns. The defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Her counsel argued that she had no intention of killing her husband, only of causing him pain. The second line of defence was provocation, based on a history of ill-treatment through the marriage, culminating in her husband’s threat to use a hot iron on her and beat her in the morning if she did not provide him with money. In his summing up, the judge noted evidence from the defendant’s GP and others that her husband has used physical violence against her, but stressed that for the provocation plea to be successful, it was necessary to establish a ‘sudden and temporary loss of self-control’. He noted that counsel for the defence had made much of the marriage being an arranged marriage, but asked members of the jury to ‘consider what difference that makes, it may have been the custom’. The defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on the 7th December 1989.

Which Court did this case commence in and explain the composition of the court.

As with all cases in the criminal division this case was immediately heard in the magistrates’ court where due to the severity of the indictment it would have been committed to the Crown Court. The Composition of the magistrates’ court would have been either 3 magistrates on the bench or alternatively a single district judge.

Which Court was the case tried in and why? Explain the composition of the Court.

The defendant was tried in the crown court after the case was committed by the magistrates courts. The defendant was indicted for murder and her trial began in the 29th November 1989 at Lewes Crown Court and she was sentenced to the mandatory life sentence of life imprisonment when she was found guilty by a majority of ten to two. The composition of the court consisted of a 12 person jury who heard the case and also Judge Leonard who passed the mandatory life sentence.

...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Which Court was the case tried in and why? Explain the composition of the Court.

Explain the sentences available to the courts, the aims, purposes and objectives of sentencing and which of those sentences are relevant to this case?

The sentencing within the magistrates courts are restricted by statute and are generally restricted to fines of up to £5000 and imprisonment of up to 6 months unless the defendant is being dealt with two or more offences; in this case the judge can impose a custodial sentence of up to 1 year in prison. The aims, purpose and objectives of this court are to deal with the lesser crimes committed using the powers they have to ensure that lesser crimes are not committed to the higher courts, costing money and time. The powers of the magistrates were not great enough to deal with the case of Mrs Ahluwalia; thus the case being committed to the Crown Court. The Crown Court is the higher court of first instance in the criminal division with the Central Criminal Court situated at the Old Bailey in London. The Crown Court carries out four principle types of activity; appeals from decisions in the magistrates courts, sentencing of defendeants whom have been committed from the magistrates courts, jury trials and those who are convicted in the crown court either by pleading guilty or after trial. The wait time for a case to be heard in a Crown Court is approximately 13 weeks and 3 days if the defendant is in custody or 15 weeks and 4 days if the defendant is on bail. Within the Crown Court the judge has the power to sentence the defendant to the maximum sentence allowed, the minimum and maximum sentences are set out by the Sentencing Council and the judge can decide what the sentence will be if the defendant is found guilty of the indictment. The aims, purposes and objectives of the Crown Court is to ensure that all cases that are committed to them are dealt with and that the judiciary hands the punishments accordingly for each indictment that they are presented with. In the case of Mrs Ahluwalia she was tried in the Crown Court and was given the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The mandatory life sentence comes with minimum term set by the judge in which the offender must serve before they would be considered by the Parole Board for release. The minimum term for murder is based upon the guidance set out in section 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and sets out examples of different scenarios and cases and the starting point which would usually be applied; an example of this is that is the murder is committed with a knife of other weapon the starting point is 25 years.

Did the accused raise any defence at the trial?

At the original trial the defendant did not give any form of evidence. She provided no medical evidence. Her case was solely that she had no intention of killing her husband and that she only wanted to inflict some pain on him but not seriously harm him. There was a secondary defence made of provocation. To support this defence reliance was placed upon the history of violence and ill-treatment throughout the marriage. The defence sought a verdict of manslaughter, but the jury then convicted of murder.

This case went to appeal – find and state the grounds for appeal.

There were three grounds of appeal raised in the appellant’s trial. The first two related to the learned judges direction to the jury of provocation. The definition of provocation is a classic definition issues by Lord Devlin and was approved by the Crown Court in the Case of R v Duffy (1949). The definition states “provocation is some act, or series of acts done (or words spoken)…which would cause in any reasonable person and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not the master of his or her mind”. The defence used this as a ground of appeal as they believed that Mrs Ahluwalia fell under the definition of provocation set out by Lord Devlin. The second ground for appeal was based upon a different aspect of the learned judge’s direction on provocation. This concerned the way the judge had dealt with the appellants “characteristics” a he was seeking to follow the model direction set out by Lord Diplock in DPP v Camplin. Lord Diplock stated in this case “the judge should then explain to the jury that the reasonable man referred o in the question is a person having the power of self-control to be expected of an oridinary person of the sex and age of the accused. But in other respecrs sharing sucj of the accuseds characteristics as they think would affect the gravity of provocation to him; and that the question is not merely whether such a person would in like circumstances be provoked to lose his self control but also would react to the provocation as the accused did

This is where most serious cases are heard.