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

The dividing line between the offences of murder and involuntary manslaughter is unacceptably blurred and does not ensure that only the most morally culpable offenders receive the mandatory life sentence. Critically discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Criminal Law Summative Coursework: The dividing line between the offences of murder and involuntary manslaughter is unacceptably blurred and does not ensure that only the most morally culpable offenders receive the mandatory life sentence. Critically discuss. In English Law, there are two general homicide offences: murder and manslaughter. Together, they cover the various ways in which someone might be at fault in killing. Homicide is generally defined as the unlawful killing of a human being; there are different offences depending on the mens rea of the defendant and whether there is a special defence available. It has often been argued however "where the scope of murder is too narrow, the scope of manslaughter is correspondingly too broad"1. Part of the problem is that there is no statutory definition of murder. The accepted definition is taken from Lord Coke, who stated that murder entails 'unlawfully killing a reasonable person who is in being and under the King's Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.'2 So, in short, murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, is committed when someone ("D") unlawfully kills another person ("V") with an intention either to kill V or to do V serious harm. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". ...read more.

Middle

The current definitions of these offences of manslaughter (and, for the most part, of the provocation defence) are largely the product of judicial law making in individual cases over hundreds of years; they are "not the products of legislation enacted after wide consultation and research into alternative possibilities"17. However, from time to time, the courts have updated or changed the definitions. New cases have then generated further case law to resolve ambiguities or avenues for argument left behind by the last case; for example Woollin regarding murder, Adomako and Smith (Morgan)18 regarding manslaughter. The mens rea of murder is defined as "malice afterthought", express or implied. This sometimes means that a person is considered guilty of murder even though D did not intend to kill (R v Vickers), confirmed in R v Cunningham19. However in the Attorney General's reference20 the House of Lord's described implied malice as a 'conspicuous anomaly', which perhaps broadens the definition somewhat. Moreover, in Woolin it was stated that the jury should feel sure that the consequences were a "virtual certainty" as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case. Also under the current law, D is liable for murder if he or she kills intentionally or if he or she kills while intentionally inflicting harm, which the jury considers to have been serious. ...read more.

Conclusion

Some suggest replacing the two-tier structure with a three-tier structure. Such a structure would, according to the Law Reform Commission, be "much better equipped to deal with the stresses and strains on the law and with the issues of appropriate labelling and sentencing"29. The three tiers suggested, in descending order of seriousness would be first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter. Almost since its conception, the definition of manslaughter and murder have remains largely the same. Over the centuries, the "two categories of murder and manslaughter have had to bear the strain of accommodating changes and deepening understandings of the nature and degree of criminal fault and the emergence of new partial defences"30. They have also had to satisfy demands that labelling and sentencing should be based on rational and just principles. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of criminal justice reform, brought in a new sentencing regime for murder. However the radical reforms effected by the 2003 Act stand upon "shaky foundations"31, because the offence of murder, and the partial defences to it, does not have defensible definitions or a rational structure. Unfortunately, whilst twentieth century legislation on murder brought about many valuable reforms, the definitions of murder and the partial defences remain "misleading, out-of-date, unfit for purpose, or all of these"32. Quite simply, "they are not up to the task of providing the kind of robust legal support upon which the viability of the 2003 Act depends"33. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Criminal 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 University Degree Criminal law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Analysis of the law relating to the offence of Murder and relevant offences of ...

    4 star(s)

    Murder will therefore be proved if the prosecution can prove that Mo certainly realized that she would cause serious bodily harm to John. It is more than likely that this will be proved. If murder is not proved due to lack of mens rea then alternative charge can be brought

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Chain of causation problem question. The given case is concerned with the law ...

    4 star(s)

    would inevitably recognise and must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm resulting there from albeit not serious harm." It also needs to be established that there was a causal link between the act and the consequence, thereby preventing a break in the chain of causation, a point that was clarified in Mitchell6.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide. Unlawful killing is when and a person of sound mind and of the ...

    4 star(s)

    This example can be seen in R v McKechnie (1992) CA where the victim was hit over the head with a chair causing injuries which prevented the doctors from treating a condition which was later discovered when the victim was in hospital.

  2. Concept of criminal liability - revision notes.

    If any part of the test can not be proven the case against the defendant will fail as he was not negligent. 1. Was the loss suffered foreseeable? Langley (police) v Dray 1998 - L was chasing D in a stolen car.

  1. R v Nedrick and R v Woollin: intention in murder.

    whether the accused foresaw that it would be a natural consequence of his act. If so, the jury could, if they so chose, draw the inference that the defendant intended that consequence. The objective of Moloney was to place a stricter "test" upon the finding of intention than Hyam, which,

  2. Critically examine the defence of provocation. Including the implications of the House of Lords' ...

    so, and the majority concluded there was nothing in the judgement to say that the same principle of compassion was not applicable to other characteristics which the jury might think need be taken into account. The decision in Morgan Smith has enlarged the scope of the defence of provocation, it

  1. In order to advise Aidan on his criminal liability, it is necessary to look ...

    'obvious and serious risk' but nonetheless went ahead activating the firebomb anyway.8 Furthermore, the bombing of the hospital by Aidan must be strongly related to the death that has resulted, and a novus actus interveniens must not have arisen to break the chain of causation.9 It is valuable to note

  2. After Woollin, the law of Intention remains unclear, but nonetheless works in a satisfactory ...

    Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009, 171 [3] Huxley-Binns, Rebecca. "Mens Rea." Criminal Law Concentrate. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. 50 [4] (1986) 83 Cr App R 267 [5] Norrie, A, Crime, Reason, and History: A Critical Introduction to Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.

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