Human rights in Britain
Law Human rights in Britain Civil liberties are rights that an individual has; these rights are called Human Rights. The extent to which civil liberties are recognised varies with in different legal systems, however all democratic states recognise the following to some degree, freedom of speech this is where the government can not control the media, and freedom of belief this is religious freedom also freedom of assembly this is freedom to meet with others for example political parties and trade unions. The freedom to protest peacefully and freedom from imprisonment or other punishment when no law or no just law has been broken. The traditional view of civil liberties in Britain before the European Convention on Human Rights were known as residual rights these included residual freedoms patchwork of United kingdom laws, restricting freedoms where necessary. European Convention on Human Rights only influences United Kingdom Courts; government had no obligation to alter legislation to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights also legal action under the European Convention on Human Rights was only possible through European Court of Human Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights in to domestic law. The aim of this was to strengthen the protection of individual rights by United Kingdom Courts and also aimed to provide
The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which it is used. Factors such as mistake and intoxication may also be relevant. Critically consider the truth of the above statement.
"The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which it is used. Factors such as mistake and intoxication may also be relevant". Critically consider the truth of the above statement. Self-defence (which includes acting in the prevention of crime) results in a compete acquittal. It allows rotationally criminal activity to be accepted by the courts. It can be used as a defence to all crimes, including murder. An obvious point here to consider is whether it is really morally right to allow those have taken lives to receive a full acquittal. It may be fair for lesser crimes, but maybe a partial defence should be introduced for those who have killed another. However, it is more commonly used for non-fatal offences. There are three situations in which force can be used. This includes prevention of crime (S.3 (1) Criminal Law Act 1967), defence of property (S.5 (2) Criminal Damage Act 1971) and of course self-defence which is found in common law. As it is not laid down in a specific act, but just common law, it may provide some inconsistencies in the law. When the defendant pleads self-defence, the onus is placed on the prosecution to disprove it. There are two limbs to this principle. The prosecution must prove that the use of any force was unnecessary or, if some force was justifiable that the actual degree of force used was reasonable.
Pros and cons of custodial and community sentences.
Discuss the pros and cons of custodial and community sentences. June 06 The advantages of custodial sentences are that the criminal cannot commit so many crimes against the public at large and the purpose of public protection is thereby realised. Also criminals that have committed a serious offence such as rape, murder, manslaughter will be of the public awareness also the consequences bring in the idea of general deterrence in addition to individual deterrence. Some criminals may learn from their negligence therefore become better people when they have served their sentence. Custodial sentences include discretionary life sentences, which is an advantage because this type of sentence ensures criminals who have committed serious offences such as robbery, rape and manslaughter, are sentenced to life imprisonment. However the disadvantages would be that prisoners who are sent to prison spend too much time with other dangerous criminals which can turn that prisoner into a better and more dangerous criminal when they have served their sentence. Another factor would be the population of the prisons due to the maximum capacity being 80,000 this is still not enough to hold the criminals therefore leading to overcrowding and this can lead to criminals being released before serving their full sentence which is unsafe and unfair. Prisons are also very expensive to run, it costs
derek bentley case
953: Derek Bentley hanged for murder Two people one under the age of 18 and another 19 years of age broke in to a warehouse armed. Derek Bentley 19 years of age and Christopher Craig, both fans of American gang and mafia movies in the 1950' s were accused of the murder of PC Sidney Miles after a raid took place at the warehouse. Christopher Craig began shooting randomly while Derek Bentley was held next to a police officer under arrest, until Craig shot PC Miles who then died. Both were arrested and taken t o court. Derek Bentley was a 19 year old who was executed in 1953, 11 December at 9:00 for murder. He was executed for the murder of PC Sidney Miles. Many last-minute appeals were made but were rejected. Alongside Derek to stand trial for the murder of PC Sidney Miles was co-defendant, Christopher Craig. Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley were both at the scene when Christopher fired the fatal shot at the PC, due to Christopher's age he was given a lenient sentence and escaped the death sentence. Trial The trial began at the Old Bailey on Thursday the 9th of December 1952 before the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard. Both Craig and Bentley pleaded not guilty. The case against Derek Bentley relied on three main pieces of evidence. The phrase "Let him have it, Chris". The meaning of these words were not conclusive as some believed Bentley meant for Craig to give
aqa law module 4 murder mens rea
Q) ANALYSE THE CURRENT LAW ON MALICE AFORETHOUGHT (module 4) The mens rea of murder is defined as intent to kill or to commit grievous bodily harm (gbh) the former is referred as expressed malice, the later as implied malice The first point of criticism is that both these mens rea elements are not defined in any statutory form. This includes the non-fatal offences which are s47 actual bodily harm (s46), wounding or committing grievous bodily harm without intent. Also wounding or committing grievous bodily harm with intent which is obviously s18 the most serious offence, this is above assault and battery. Another point to consider is that the words malice aforethought themselves are very extremely unhelpful, as murder requires neither malice nor any degree of premeditation, indeed the greater majority of murders are actually committed in hot rather than cold blood. The existence of implied malice (intent to commit GBH) was confirmed Lords Goddard in Vickers and this has attracted considerable criticism in the law profession. In the later case of r v Cunningham in a dissenting judgement lord Edmund Davis argued against intention to commit GBH being part of murder mens rea, this was also discussed in the most resent case of smith- v - Barkshire (2007) but the similar principles of Vickers was held. lord Edmund Davis stated " I find it passing strange that a person can
AQA Law 2007 Problem Question - Graham (Part (b))
Law Question - June 2007 (b) Discuss the possible criminal liability of Graham for offences arising out of the taking and use of Harry's card and the use of the £200. Graham may be charged with theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. This states that "a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Appropriation is a neutral act, and is "any assumption of the rights of the owner". Only one of the owner's rights, such as touching, using or destroying, needs to be assumed for there to be an appropriation (Morris). A consensual taking can amount to an appropriation (Lawrence, Gomez), and gifts can also be appropriated (Hinks). "Property", defined under section 4, includes money, "personal", "tangible" items and also intangible "things in action" such as bank accounts, shares and trademarks. Property belongs to "anyone in possession or control of it or having in it any proprietary right or interest". The mens rea of theft is dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive. Section 2 provides a "negative definition" of dishonesty, and describes three situations in which the accused will not be dishonest; these are a belief in a legal right to deprive (Holden), belief that the owner would have consented and belief that the owner cannot be discovered through
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
A was engaged in rifle practice on a local firing range. A knew that B was 400 yards away in a trench below the target keeping score. A discharged six rounds at the target and B emerged from the protection of the trench. A decided to frighten him and fired a round over B's head. The round hit a concrete post and ricocheted and hit B who was seriously injured. Advise A of his criminal liability. As soon as he fired the round over B's head, A might have committed either a battery or an assault contrary to s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act. An assault and a battery is respectively intentionally or recklessly causing one to apprehend immediate personal violence and intentionally or recklessly applying personal violence. For battery, since the bullet hit B, there is obviously an application of force. Though A had not intended that, he commits the offence as long as he was reckless as to whether the bullet would hit B. A must have foreseen this result as a possibility (R v G and another). This a question of fact. Records of A's practices in the range can be evidence from which this foresight can be inferred, but since the facts do not show such evidence, A's guilt is by no means conclusive. Though it is clear from the facts that A intended to frighten B, this 'malice' cannot be transferred to fit, neither does it suffice as, the mens rea for battery. In spite of being subsumed
Should soft drugs like canabis be decriminalised?
'SHOULD SOFT DRUGS SUCH AS CANNABIS BE DECRIMINALISED?' Cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom. The unlawful possession of cannabis has increased and mostly among the young people of teenage. Recently, there has been much debate regarding the legalisation of cannabis for medical purposes1, but this would also increase the misuse of drugs among the ordinary people. An article in Telegraph newspaper reveals the figures of health authority showing the increased number of adults being treated by English hospital trusts after the abuse of cannabis. There were 11,057 in 2004-05 but it rose to 16,685 in 2006-2007 which is a clear evidence of the harmfulness caused by cannabis.2 Despite the legalisation, there is also an issue regarding the classification of cannabis. The main statutes governing the availability of drugs in the United Kingdom are the Medicines Act 1968 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.3 This essay will focus on the arguments concerning that should soft drugs such as cannabis be decriminalised or not. The controlled drugs are classified under A, B and C class depending on how harmful they are.4 The Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971 which divided the drugs into these three categories and settled out the charges for possession or supply of the drugs according to each class. Class A drugs are the most dangerous having health risks and
The Crown Procecution Service
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was established under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and started operating in 1986. Although the CPS Work closely with the Police it is an independent body responsible for prosecuting criminal cases. The CPS is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DDP). Across England and Wales the CPS has 42 areas which are divided into 15 regional groups. A Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP) is responsible for prosecutions in each area. The main role of the CPS is to prosecute people charged with criminal offences provided the cases pass the evidential test and public interest test. The CPS also gives the police advice on matters related to their investigation of crime and deciding on what offence should be charged. They also review prosecutions started or referred to them by the police to ensure that the defendants are prosecuted on the right charges before the right court. Another responsibility of the CPS is to prepare cases for court and present cases in front of a court. Decisions to Prosecute are guided by the Code for Crown prosecutors which sets out the principles that Crown Prosecutors Should follow. Cases which are received by the Crown Prosecution Service are reviewed against two tests set out in the Code to determine whether to prosecute or not. The two tests are the evidential test and the
The present law relating to Involuntary Manslaughter serves neither the defendant nor the criminal justice system. Discuss (50 marks)
Transfer-Encoding: chunked ‘The present law relating to involuntary MSL serves neither the defendant nor the criminal justice system’ Involuntary Manslaughter (MSL) is defined as an unlawful killing where the defendant (D) has no malice aforethought express or implied (to kill or cause GBH) which is required for murder. There are 3 ways of committing involuntary MSL: Unlawful Act MSL, Gross negligence MSL and reckless MSL. For D to be liable for unlawful (unl) act MSL D must commit an unl act which is dangerous and causes the victim’s (V)’s death. D must also intend to commit the unlawful act. An unl act is defined as a criminal offence. This is illustrated in the case of Franklin 1883) where D was acquitted after throwing a box into the sea which hit and killed a swimmer, as this was held to be a civil wrong which is not enough to create liability. This was also seen in Lamb (1967) where D shot his friend who didn’t think the gun would fire; this wasn’t assault as his friend feared no violence thus wasn’t an unl act. The unl act doesn’t have to be serious as seen in Larkin (1943) where the appellant waved a cut throat razor to scare another but instead scared V who fell onto it and died; D was convicted as this was deemed to be assault. The unl act also doesn’t have to be against a person; as seen in Newbury and Jones (1976) where two D’s threw a
