In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), consider the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory.

Authors Avatar

In relation to murder (including voluntary manslaughter), consider the suggestion that the current law is unsatisfactory.

In the proposals published in December 2005, the Law Commission says that the law governing homicide in England and Wales is a ‘rickety structure set upon shaky foundations’ and propose that for the first time, the general law of homicide be rationalized through legislation.

The AR of murder being the unlawful killing of a human being can be unclear as there is no definition of death, nor a ruling as to exactly when it takes place, modern life support technology (life support machine) can make death a gray area whereas in the past they would have died. This was the case in Malchrek and Steele where the court decided obiter that death meant brain dead. This is not considered a problem as the rule of causation can be used to establish liability. CLR agreed that it’s better not to have a strict definition of death.

Join now!

The MR of murder us the unlawful killing done with malice afterthought. This definition can be complicated for a jury. In AG REF NO.3 1994- Lord Mustill described it as 'a doubly misleading expression'. Malice implies bad feeling towards the victim. However a person can be guilty of murder with the best of intentions for the V. COCKER- the husband gave in to his wife plea to terminate her life. 'Afterthought' is also misleading as it implies premeditation or planning but spur of the moment killings are still murder e.g. prevocational cases.

Intention is the only form ...

This is a preview of the whole essay