Explain in detail what actus reus and the chain of causation actually means.
Explain in detail what actus reus and the chain of causation actually means. The term actus reus is Latin for 'the guilty act'. It is essential in criminal law, as actus reus must be there for their to be a criminal offence. It can mean a guilty act or an omission to act. In the crime of murder, then the actus reus would be the killing of a human being. The act must be voluntary for the defendant to be guilty. For example, if the defendant acts out of reflex because of another force, it is not voluntary and the defendant cannot be found guilty. A good example can be found in the case of Hill v Baxter (1958) where a driver is being chased by a swarm of bees and driving a car in these conditions would be extremely hard so could not be held guilty for his actions. If the defendant is to be found guilty of an offence then it is important to prove that the defendant caused the offence in the first place. This is the chain of causation, and means that there must be a clear and unbroken link between the conduct and the consequence. For example, if a defendant attacked a victim and the victim dies then the chain of causation has not been broken and the defendant is guilty of murder. However, if the defendant attacks the victim and the ambulance has a crash on the way to the hospital then the chain of causation has been broken. To see if the defendant is still to be found guilty we
critical evalution of murder
How satisfactory is the current law on murder? The current law on murder is relatively satisfactory although improvements do need to be made. One of the existing problems concerns the mens rea of the crime. In some ways it can be considered to broad. A person who kills someone else but only intended to cause grievous bodily harm, but not to kill, can be convicted of murder even if they didn't foresee that death could have been a result of their actions. This was the case in R v Cunningham [1981] where the defendant hit the victim again and again with a chair and eventually they died. The defendant was convicted of murder even though he argued that he had not intended to kill. The House of Lords agreed with the trial judge's direction to the jury that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm was sufficient mens rea to uphold a conviction for murder if the victim dies of his injuries. On the other hand sometimes the mens rea of murder can be considered to narrow. It fails to cover recklessness so, for example, a terrorist who gives a warning that he has planted a bomb but people are still killed as a result of it being detonated, cannot be convicted of murder because he doesn't have the requisite mens rea. It is clear that the mens rea of murder needs to be amended so that it perhaps no longer includes an intention to cause really serious injury but does include
"The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and recklessness - Explain and discuss.
"The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and recklessness. However, such clarity carries the price of both (a) not being able to convict people who ought to be regarded as having the culpability for murder and (b) unjust convictions for murder." Explain and discuss. Nedrick1 updated the law surrounding intention by constructing a model direction which states that a jury should be directed by the judge 'that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant realised that such was the case'2 Woollin3 extended the verdict given in Nedrick after the 'entitled to infer' intention on the part of the jury was updated to 'entitled to find' by the judges in the Woollin case. Woollin upheld Nedrick's test after the House of Lords stated that the trial judge enlarged the scope of the mental element required for murder and had misdirected the jury. The trial judge told the jury that a 'substantial risk' as to the consequences was only required to infer intention, but the House of Lords declared that the consequences have to be (a) virtually certain and (b) known to be of virtual certainty by the defendant for a conviction of murder to be
Critically evaluate the meaning of the term
Q: Critically evaluate the meaning of the term "Recklessness" to describe an aspect of Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) and explain how it is currently applied to offences in the English Law System. A: In everyday language, Recklessness means to take an unjustified risk. However, its legal definition is not quite the same. To find out the meaning of Recklessness, careful direction is to be given to the jury. There are tow types of Recklessness, which were named after the cases they were defined in: R v Cunningham (1957), which is the Subjective version of Recklessness and MPC v Caldwell (1982), which is the Objective version of Recklessness. The dictionary meaning of reckless is to be careless, thoughtless, incautious, heedless, unheeding, regardless, daredevil, madcap, wild, irresponsible, unwise, indiscreet, mindless or negligent. Recklessness is a form of Mens Rea (Guilty Mind). Mens Rea is the Latin for 'guilty mind' and traditionally refers to the state of mind of the person committing the crime. The required Mens Rea varies depending on the offence, but there are three main states of mind which separately or together can constitute the necessary Mens Rea of a criminal offence. When discussing Mens Rea, we often refer to the difference between subjective (Cunningham) and objective (Caldwell) tests. Put simply, a subjective test involves looking at what the actual
With reference to the case situation above, discuss, using decided cases to support you arguments:a) The offences, if any, with which Archie could be charged and what the prosecution would need to prove to establish liability for each offence;
Paper 2, December 2001, Question 6 Trina Soon Archie is employed to protect the pheasants on Lord Melchett's estate from poachers. On day, from a distance he sees Liam and Craig on the estate and, knowing them to be poachers, he decides to 'rid himself of the problem for all time' and fires his shotgun at them. Both Liam and Craig are only wounded, however, but do need to be taken to hospital for treatment. On the way to the hospital, the brakes on the ambulance fail, it leaves the road and overturns on a bend and Liam dies in the accident. With reference to the case situation above, discuss, using decided cases to support you arguments: a) The offences, if any, with which Archie could be charged and what the prosecution would need to prove to establish liability for each offence; (20) b) And whether you think Archie would be convicted of any offence. (5) a. In relation to the death of Liam, there is the possibility that Archie would be charged under homicide. Archie carried out the apt actus reus of homicide, whereby he has committed an unlawful killing in the Queen's peace in the county of the realm and death occurs within 1 year and 1 day. Although Liam died only in the accident, the main cause for his death was Archie shooting at him. As such, Archie has provided for the cause in fact, according to the 'but-for' test, where if but-for Archie, Liam
Discuss the extent to which the law on omissions offers protection to those who need it whilst sending a strong deterrent message in the right circumstances
Omissions is a type of crime where the law punishes the defendant for not acting in a situation where they should have. The first area of omissions is the area of contractual duties and this is where the defendant had not done something that was in their contract to do which means that they broke the law under omissions. THe first case that shows this is the case of Pittwood and this is where the defendant was in charge of a railway gate and left it open while they went for their break which resulted in the death of a victim. The defendant was liable by omission for manslaughter as it was their contractual duty to close the gate and make sure that nobody is hurt. This sends a strong deterrent message to other operators as it means that they are less likely to leave their post. The next case that shows omissions is the case of Adomako and this is where the defendant was meant to check the oxygen tube of the victim to make sure it stayed in place but the defendant forgot to check and the victim died. The defendant was liable by omission for gross negligence manslaughter as they failed their contractual duty to check the oxygen tube. This sends a strong deterrent message as it was grossly negligent for the defendant to not check the oxygen tube and means that other people like him will be more careful next time. The next area of omissions is the area of public duties
Tort Law. Evaluate the tort of liability in negligence.
Evaluate the tort of liability in negligence (18) Negligence is acting carelessly towards someone you are lawfully required to care for. There are three stages of a successful negligence claim, all of which the claimant has to prove. The burden of claim lies on the claimant to prove the defendant had a duty of care, the defendant breached their duty of care and the claimant suffered a loss as a result of the breach. The laws around negligence have developed and changed over a number of years, it is a well developed system although it also has its drawbacks. The first factor to consider when evaluating liability in negligence is the fault based system, this looks at how the claimant must prove everything in order to be compensated. Cost is an issue of this as bringing a claim and collecting the evidence to prove the defendant liable can be very expensive, especially if expert witnesses are used to give better quality evidence. The costs of bringing a claim may deter the claimant from doing so. The delays are another issue. Bringing a claim to court will cause delays in gathering evidence to prove their claim. Delays are also an issue if insurance companies are involved to pay out a money, this is because they are suspicious of whether claims are genuine or not and therefore will investigate every claim before paying out any money, this can be a timely process, although the
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW QUESTION : 1 Sara was teaching her husband, Tom to drive but he was a slow learner frequently subjected to excessive criticism by Sara and there were numerous arguments between them. During the course of a lesson, Sara suggested to Tom that he was not using the clutch properly. Tom made no reply but, a few minutes later, suddenly steered the car off the road into a ditch. At the time, Sara was not wearing her seatbelt and she was thrown through the windscreen and badly injured. Had she received prompt treatment, she would probably have survived but her body was not discovered until three hours later. Tom had also been injured in the crash and he was found by Vic an hour later, wandering about outside Vic's house, rambling and incoherent. Vic took him in and gave him a very large glass of brandy. Tom then left the house, walked along a pavement and crossed a main road in front of fast moving traffic. Una was driving on the road at the time and, in swerving to avoid Tom, ran into a queue of people at a bus stop and killed Walter. When stopped and questioned, Tom was though to be drunk but he maintained that he had no recollection of anything that had occurred after the original crash involving Sara. (a) Analyse the facts above to show whether and how Tom may be guilty of Sara's murder. How might he seek to reduce his liability for her death? (b) (i) Explain
Critically assess the current law regarding the Mens Rea of murder
J.Suliman Critically assess the current law regarding the Mens Rea of murder The current law requires a certain level of mens rea in order for a crime to be called murder, which has a mandatory life sentence as a penalty. This is to ensure a just legal system where people are punished in accordance to their moral culpability. In order for an offender to have caused murder, he must have 'specific intent' (the highest level of mens rea) or 'oblique intent' to do so. The criminal must have either intended to cause death or to intend to cause grievous bodily harm (and as a result the victim died). The problems the courts have faced in this area of the law is in their attempt to define a satisfactory test for 'oblique intent' (where the criminal, through achieving his aim has also caused other fatal consequences to be brought about, which would have been caused via the natural course of events - whether the defendant desired these consequences are not important). This area of intention has caused many problems, with the courts attempting to define this type of intention many times throughout key cases. First, in Moloney 1985 (where the defendant shot and killed his stepfather in a drunken challenge to see who was quicker on the draw) the House of Lords decided that foresight of consequences was only evidence of intention. The Lords also gave guidelines, which referred to the
Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter In order to critically discuss whether the law governing involuntary manslaughter is in a satisfactory state, I must first look at the current law, outlining the problems, and then look at proposed changes. Involuntary manslaughter - * This is where death occurs as a result of conduct by the defendant. * It has similar AR to murder, but lacks the MR of murder. * It can include a very wide set of circumstances. * The maximum sentence is life, but the judge has discretion in sentencing. * There are three types of involuntary manslaughter, as well as a newer area which is emerging. These are; * Constructive manslaughter (unlawful act manslaughter) * Gross negligence manslaughter * Subjective recklessness manslaughter * And the newer area, corporate manslaughter. Constructive Manslaughter This is made up from an unlawful and dangerous act where death is the consequence, even though death may never have been contemplated by the defendant. AR * The defendants' unlawful and dangerous act caused the death of another human being. MR * It must be proved that D had the MR for the unlawful act, but it is not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act. An omission is not enough to create unlawful act manslaughter, as shown in the case of Lowe where the defendant was charged with neglecting his child. This could be seen as slightly
