• 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. The second offence relates to Mo picking up a shovel and hitting John over the head with causing the death of John. In this act all the elements of the actus Reus of murder, as discussed above, are present.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    which prevents the supply of articles for administering or preparation of a controlled drug. With respect to the seizure and injuries suffered by Carol Albert is likely to be prosecuted under s.47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 under the guidelines established by the Crown Prosecution Service8.

  1. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    All of the criteria has to be applied to a person before a charge of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility can be accepted. The laws of provocation fell under S.3 of the Homicide Act 1957 but were abolished by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; however within this

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

    It is difficult to imagine why this case was used as an example of determining intention, because without any motive, the jury's task was difficult in the extreme. In R v. Hancock and Shankland6, the Moloney guidelines were qualified. In this case, two striking miners pushed a concrete block and

  1. the advantages and disadvantages of the United Kingdom Law Commission’s proposal that the law ...

    Whilst in some respects understandable, the link with sentencing can distort the argument about labels. For example, it is arguable that although a person who kills intentionally in response to gross provocation does not deserve a mandatory sentence, he or she should still be labelled a 'murderer'.

  2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea (an act does not make a person ...

    It is possible to be guilty of an offence if the actus reus exists but the mens rea for the same offence does not. This is illustrated in the case of R. v. Larsonneur (1933) 97 J.P. 206. The defendant, who was French, arrived in the United Kingdom with a French passport.

  1. There are different types of consent that include express and implied. Discuss the issues ...

    However due to misdirection by the trial judge the conviction was quashed. The judges in R v Brown agree that consent was an answer to common assault and indecent assault. However in the case of R v Donavan it was held, had it not been for a misdirection by the

  2. Consent to harm, discuss.

    bodily harm and the main issue was that consent does not negative harm when there is foresight of the said harm. Also the level of harm if a key factor and the 'potential damage to the appellants partner' (Allen, 2007, p363)

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