Homicide Act 1957
Q- Using Cases to illustrate your points critically, decribe the Homocide Act 1957 and include the subsequent judicial interpretations of it. The law surrounding homicide carries a wide scope of controversial issues; this can include the topics of Murder, Manslaughter, Infanticide and Vehicular homicide The definition of murder is derived from the writing of the jurist Sir Edward Coke: "Murder is where a person of sound memory and of the age of discretion unlawfully killeth...any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by party or implied by law, so as the party wounded or hurt etc., die of the wound or hurt etc." For any crime the basic requirements for an offence to be successful are an 'Actus Reus', 'Mens Rea' and an absence of a valid defence. The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of another person in the Queen's peace. The definition still stands today and until recently the definition included the "year and a day" rule but this has now been abolished. It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant (D) caused the V's death, that there was a causal link starting from the D's act leading to the V's harm. In cases where a V is stabbed or shot and dies immediately from the wound it is obvious that D caused V's death. it must be proved in each case that the defendant's actions were the cause of
Critical evaluation of murder for A2 law unit 4
Murder answer plan At the beginning of its report on the Partial Defences to Murder (Law Com 290, 2004), the Law Commission says expressly that it "has long considered that the law of murder is in need of review". This shows that it has been brought to the attention of parliament by their advisors that the law on murder is in an great need of being changed, however as parliament doesn't have to follow all that the law commission suggests to them - all the law commission is designed to do is to suggest to parliament things they think need to be changed, not things parliament will in fact change. This shows that there are indeed some points of the law on murder which need to be addressed, but that parliament isnt responding to that need as they don't feel they have the time to carry out the drafting of a statue to change it. So it shows a lack of commitment to addressing the law on behalf of parliament, whose job it is really to make the country a safer place to live in for the citizens of the UK, but it is debatable as to how safe our country really is when parliament don't commit the time to changing important statutes on murder as murder is a serious issue as to the life and wellbeings of british citizens - many people want justice to be served by those who are a danger to society. The law on murder is considered to be quite old, as the definition used for it was by Lord
In this Assignment I am going to describe the requirements of a valid contract and also describe how statutes affect contractual terms.
BTEC National Diploma in Business Aspect of Contract and Business Law Introduction: In this Assignment I am going to describe the requirements of a valid contract and also describe how statutes affect contractual terms. Task 1.1 (p1) In this first task I will be explaining the requirements to create a valid contract and I will also point out the differences between an offer and an invitation to treat. A contract is an oral or written agreement between people. A contract is made in order to know your rights so that you cannot breach it, which means a contract binds the parties together so that no one can breach the agreement in future. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties who intend to be bounded by law. A valid contract has to consist the following: * A valid offer * A valid Acceptance * A valid Consideration * Intention * Capacity * Legality Offer This is the first stage of a contract, this is when the offeror the person who makes the offer, states an interest to enter an agreement, if the offer that the offeror sets is accepted by the other party (the offeree). An offer is a proposal, promise or other manifestation of willingness to make and fulfil a contract. However and offer from the offeror could also be terminated if the offeree does not accept the terms of the agreement. There are certain rules relating to what a valid offer is one of
How effective was the defence of intoxication?
How effective was the defence of intoxication? Intoxication is the excessive drinking and various forms of drug taking which can be voluntary or involuntary. Intoxication can be a defence depending on whether or not D has the required mens rea. If in an intoxicated state without the required mens rea D may not be guilty. This depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and whether the offence charged was one of specific or basic intent. The absence of mens rea is required otherwise intoxication cannot be a defence as shown in Kingston (1994) 'a drugged intent is still intent'. Even if D lacks the mens rea D can still be found liable which is an exception to the rule that both mens rea and actus reus are required. Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence. If D is so intoxicated he cannot form the mens rea, he may be able to put forward the defence, but normally he will not avoid liability completely, if it is possible to convict him a lesser basic intent offence. If D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence he is not guilty. This rule comes from the case DPP v Beard. D had been charge with murder and pleaded intoxication to deny malice aforethought. From this case it is now accepted that D need not be incapable of forming intent; it is sufficient if they do not in fact do so. However, D
Examine the debate as to whether the law should reflect moral values, and discuss issues which show the continuing importance of that debate.
Consider the view that there is a close relationship between law and morality? Examine the debate as to whether the law should reflect moral values, and discuss issues which show the continuing importance of that debate. (30+5 marks) Morals are society's values and beliefs which distinguish from right and wrong. They are constantly changing to reflect society's attitudes ad current social circumstances. Morality can either be prescriptive or normative; which specifies what ought to be done and what is morally acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. This has mainly been influenced by religious beliefs which set the moral code of ones attitudes and beliefs. However, laws are a 'rule of a general norm mandating or guiding conduct,' state from Twining and Miers. Law and moral rules are similar in that they guide social conduct and behaviour, but the main difference is that only rules with legal statuses lead to sanctions and remedies which courts will enforce. Even though law develops from a shared morality, there are differences between the two. Morality develops over a long period of time, whilst the law can be introduced instantly. Morality cannot be changed deliberately; it is formed slowly, and changes according to the will of people and society's opinions and attitudes. For example, in the late 19th century, Oscar Wilde was ruined and imprisoned over his
Bail. Under S.4 of the Bail Act 1976 there is a presumption that un convicted suspects will be given bail. This ties in with the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty
Assignment 2.11 Bail means a person is allowed to be at liberty, rather than held in custody while awaiting the next stage of the case. The right to bail has been reduced in recent years amid concern that individuals on bail reoffend and fail to turn up at court for their trial. Fourteen percent of those bailed to appear at court fail to do so according to the Criminal Justice Statistics 2003, another statistic says nearly twenty-five percent of defendants commit at least one offence while on bail. The criteria for granting or refusing bail are contained in the Bail ct 1976. There is a general presumption in favour of bail for un convicted defendants but there are some important exceptions. Bail need not be granted where there are substantial grounds for believing that, unless kept in custody, the accused would fail to surrender to bail, or would commit an offence and the probable sentence, along with the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant. The Act which makes the decision on bail is the need to protect the public Vs all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Under S.4 of the Bail Act 1976 there is a presumption that un convicted suspects will be given bail. This ties in with the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. However, the general public have the right to be protected from criminals. This means that the criminal
Describe the law making procedure in Parliament.
Describe the law making procedure in parliament. There are three main types of Bills: Public Bills, Private Bills and Hybrid Bills. Public Bills affect the general public. There are two types of public Bills: Government Bills and Private Members Bills. Government Bills are introduced into parliament by Government Ministers whereas Private Members Bills are introduced by backbench MPs or peers. Private Bills affect a particular person or organisation or locality. Hybrid Bills is a cross between a Public Bill and a Private Bill which is introduced by a Government Minister but only affect a particular person, locality or organisation. The first step taken is the first reading. In the first reading the title and main aims of the bill are announced and copies of it are distributed. There is no debate taken at this stage but a verbal vote is taken to decide whether the bill should progress through to the second reading. If the vote is in favour of the Bill a date is then set for the second reading. In the second reading the House debates the whole Bill and is focused on the general principles of it. It is the Minister or other promoter of the Bill who starts the debate. At the end of the debate there is a vote for or against the Bill progressing further. If the Bill progresses to the next stage it is quite likely it will become an Act of Parliament. After the second reading the
Discuss whether the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are in a satisfactory state or are in need of reform.
Q3 Discuss whether the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are in a satisfactory state or are in need of reform. [50] Insanity is a complete, general defence. A complete defence is where the mens rea is completely removed from the crime; mens rea is Latin for ‘guilty mind’ and refers to the definition of a crime that deals with what the defendants state of mind must have been to be guilty for example Murder, the mens rea of it is the intent to kill or do GBH.. The general part of insanity Is something which can be used for any crime. Insanity is also known as insane automatism and the Criminal Procedure Act 1991 gives the outlines for the defendant who is found not guilty by way of insanity. Insanity cannot count as a defence to strict liability crimes such as speeding and these are crimes which are less serious and don’t have a mens rea. At any time throughout the trial the defence for insanity can be called upon by any member of the defence or prosecution. If a claim for insanity is successful then the defendant will end up with a verdict of not guilty however they will have to go to a mental hospital to prevent further danger to themselves and other people. If there is an unsuccessful claim of insanity then the defendant may be found guilty and therefore go to prison etc, or he may be fully acquitted. Whether the defendant can be classed as
With close reference to the cases of Shaw v DPP and Knuller v DPP , Show how the law relates to morals and religion.
1/18/2012 With close reference to the cases of Shaw v DPP and Knuller v DPP , Show how the law relates to morals and religion. What is the relation of law to morality? Law’s relation to morality has been debated ever since jurisprudence itself came to be and it seems as though it is destined to remain as one of the great philosophical debates. They are mutually engaged along a course that winds through a political society’s life. Laws are generally based on the moral principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society. They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideas of the people. But good laws sometimes serve to rouse the moral conscience of the people and create and maintain such conditions as may encourage the growth of morality. However, it is said that not because something is immoral that makes it illegal, example: pre-marital sex, neglecting your family and adultery are just a few. Sometimes morality can influence the law in the sense that it can provide the reason for making whole groups of immoral actions illegal. With regards to this, in the case of Shaw v DPP (1962), Lord Diplock said “Shaw’s act of publishing advertisements for prostitutes soliciting fornication tended to corrupt public morals. Therefore Shaw’s agreement to do that act was a crime at common law”. The
Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or to fail to act to help someone who is in need. Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act)
"Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or to fail to act to help someone who is in need." Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act) reflects this view. An omission is when a person voluntarily fails to act. The general rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. This was explained by Stephen J in which he stated; "A sees B drowning and is able to save B by holding out his hand. A abstains in doing so in order that B drowns. A has committed no offence." However, there are exceptions where the failure to act is the actus reus of a crime; an Act of Parliament can create liability for an omission because the defendant has a statutory duty. An example of this would be if a parent had neglected their child of food and clothing then they would be in breach of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Therefore the defendant could be prosecuted for not carrying out the duty made by this act. Another exception to the rule of omissions is if the person has a contractual duty, and fails to carry out their responsibilities in their contract. This happened in the case of R V Pittwood 1902 where the defendant was a railway-crossing keeper who failed to shut the gates when a train was approaching which resulted in the death of someone who was
