criminal law

At present the defence of provocation is used as a special defence to murder. On successful plea a charge of murder will be reduced to manslaughter. Provocation is defined under s3 Homicide Act 1957 and it must be established that the accused had been provoked and as a result had lost their self-control; the jury must also find that the reasonable man would have done the same. Case law has aided the interpretation of this definition as in the case of Duffy1 Devlin LJ stated that "...the provocation must cause a sudden and temporary loss of self control rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment, not master of his mind". This essay will discuss the defects of the law on Provocation and why critics are in favour of major reform. The Law Commission has issued a report2 on the law on homicide as a whole. Within this report the law on homicide is described as a '....rickety structure set upon shaky foundations.' The report also highlights the major flaws of the law on homicide one being that some rules are outdated as they have not been changed to correspond with recent times despite the fact that '....it has long been acknowledged that they are in dire need of reform.'3 Another is the issue of uncertainty where rules have been changed frequently and is no longer clear and is left to interpretation. This problem is evident throughout case law

  • Word count: 2500
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Criminal Law

Having studied the scenario I would assume that the principle issue arising out of this scenario is theft and other main offences related to theft such as deception. The fundamental Act dealing with this scenario is the Theft Act 1968 and 1978. This essay evokes a step by step analysis of the key aspects of criminal law with regards to theft and related offences. I will attempt to break down the situations and analyse it from a criminal law perspective, in the series as they arise in the question. Through this essay I will endeavour to explore the potential criminal liability arising out of this scenario. There are four different individuals in this scenario and I will discuss their potential criminal liability separately, starting with Vanessa. Vanessa: In Criminal law two key elements must be borne in mind in order to establish whether a person is guilty of an offence. These two elements are: actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus being the unlawful act and mens rea is the state of the mind of the accused. In order for the accused to be guilty not only must he/she have committed the unlawful act but also have a guilty mind, as only the blameworthy should be punished for their actions. To ascertain whether she is potentially criminally liable for any offence I would establish as to whether her actions constituted theft, deception and whether she has any defences. Under

  • Word count: 2941
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Criminal Law

Essay - LL1014 Criminal Law 1 The purpose of this essay is to discuss the criminal liability of Alan, pub owner Ed, and Doctor Fiona, for the deaths of Betty and Clive, and whether Alan has criminal liability for the fire damages to the pub. In relation to each defendant I will indicate which offence/s they could be charged with and outline the definitions of each offence. I will discuss relevant principles such as causation and voluntariness of Actus Reus (AR), and then apply the law to the facts of each case. Discussing first the criminal liability of Alan for the deaths of Betty and Clive, I will consider both murder, and manslaughter. The required AR for both these offences is "The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace."1 Assuming that both victims were alive and that this scenario was not during a war, it remains to establish that this was an unlawful killing. It appears that Alan's shooting and setting the pub on fire is what led to both victims' deaths and clearly no justificatory defence such as self-defence or consent could be raised. But was this a voluntary act? "Voluntary" in criminal law is defined narrowly; a "muscular bodily movement controlled by will or volition". At this stage the defendant's desire is not relevant.2 However considering that Alan was already taking an aim, and was pulling the trigger in the moment that Dennis

  • Word count: 2404
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Actus Reus.

De Montfort Law School Department of Law Criminal Law: Level 1 Practice Coursework ) Carla has been charged with an offence contrary to s 3 of the Deer Act 1991: Section 3 of the Deer Act 1991: Actus Reus = If any person takes or kills any deer between the expiry of the first hour after sunset and the beginning of the last hour before sunrise This is the Actus Reus because it shows every part of the definition of the offence, except references to the mens rea required or any defences. Actus Reus of the offence broken down into its elements (Acts/Omissions/Events & Circumstances/Consequences): Looking at the actus reus of the offence, we can clearly see that it requires a physical act to be carried out. An omission will not suffice. It also shows that in order for the actus reus to be satisfied, the act must take place according to a specific circumstance and a particular consequence must result. *Act --> Taking or killing a deer *Circumstance --> Between the expiry of the first hour after sunset and the beginning of the last hour before sunrise *Consequence --> Death of a deer Is the Actus Reus satisfied? The act of the actus reus in this case is clearly satisfied as Carla did 'fire' (i.e. shoot) at the deer. The fact that she thought she was shooting at a fox is irrelevant as her action resulted in the killing of a deer. The second element of the actus reus

  • Word count: 1747
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Cartoon Child Pornography Case Question.

English Legal Process Coursework: The Question Assume that the Coroners and Justice Bill has been enacted in the form set out below and is in force. A law student at the University of East Anglia, Brandon Fitzanglia, has been convicted of possessing prohibited images of children contrary to s.56 of the Coroners and Justice Act and has instituted an appeal to the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division by the case stated procedure. The case stated and the legislation are reproduced below. Information about the Simpsons can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons The appellant, Brandon Fitzanglia, is a fictitious person. Write the judgment of the Divisional Court in no more than 2000 words. Case stated under s.111 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (Criminal Procedure Rules, r.64.2) In the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division Between Brandon Fitzanglia, Appellant AND Crown Prosecution Service, Respondent. Case stated by Justices for Norfolk, in respect of their adjudication as a Magistrates’ Court sitting at Norwich CASE On the fifth day of June 2010, an information was preferred with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions by the respondent against the appellant stating that he was found in possession of prohibited images of children contrary to s.56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2010. 2. We heard the

  • Word count: 2147
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

The chain of causation is a fragile concept, easily broken. Discuss.

‘The chain of causation is a fragile concept, easily broken.’ Discuss. The chain of causation is a series of events that establishes if the defendant’s act caused harm. Causation can be divided into factual and legal causation. For the purpose of my essay, I will be focusing on legal causation. The key test for legal causation is by proving that the defendant’s act is ‘an operating and substantial cause’. The chain of causation can be broken through proving the existence of the ‘novus actus interveniens’, as a ‘free, voluntary and informed act’ of a third party, rendering the original act no longer a substantial and operating cause of the result. In my essay, I will be arguing that the chain of causation cannot be easily broken for several reasons. Firstly, for an act to be ‘novus actus interveniens’, it needs to be ‘free, voluntary and informed’. This leads to an increased difficulty for the existence of a ‘novus actus interveniens’ as the term ‘voluntary’ can be interpreted broadly. Additionally, it is excluded from being ‘free, voluntary and informed’ if it can be justified. Secondly, the courts have shown a reluctance to render a defendant’s action no longer an operating and substantial clause. This is most apparent in medical negligence cases. Thirdly, the courts identified certain circumstances that limit the chain of

  • Word count: 1705
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Case Note - Stone & Dobinson 1977. The details contained in this case are very emotive and raise some important issues surrounding the issue of care and the duty owed to a person who is unable to care for themselves

Shaun Rogers – LW508 Criminal Law – D.Dinsmore R v John Edward Stone R v Gwendoline Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341 Court of Appeal Case Note The Facts Stone, a 67-year-old man partially deaf and almost blind lived with his younger partner Dobinson. Also living with Stone and Dobinson was Stones adult son Cyril. All had capacity issues. Stones anorexic sister Fanny came to live with her brother and his mistress as a lodger. Fanny suffered from anorexia nervosa. When living with her brother and his partner, Fanny’s condition worsened. Attempts were made to help Fanny but these were ineffective. Fanny died. Judgement Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane made it clear that there was no dispute as to the matters upon which the jury had to be satisfied before they could convict of manslaughter.[1] These were, . That the defendants took on the care of a person who was unable to care for themselves, whether this be due to the age or infirmity of the person being cared for. . With regards to the defendant’s duty of care, they were grossly negligent. . That by reason of such negligence the person died. It was suggested by Mr. Coles for the appellants that Fanny cast a duty on her brother and Mrs. Dobinson because of the fact she became infirm and helpless. He said the appellants were entitled to do nothing leading into what he believed to be an analogous example, which was

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1493
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

This essay will analyze the importance of the rule against double jeopardy and will weigh it against the rights of the accused persons in the eyes of the law

One might reasonably claim that if a doctrine, enshrined in the rule of law, had been in force for the past 800 years[1] then it represents the fact that its importance in law is too high of a value to compromise upon. However, that is not to say that the law, while recognizing such pertinence of the doctrine, cannot make exceptions to such a fundamental principle if it is in the interests of justice. Just as the law is a creature of evolution, so is the nature of the perception of justice[2]. A scrutiny of the balancing of the above two propositions, poses two prominent conundrums; firstly, the principle of finality and its independent value, secondly, the prejudicial effect of allowing subsequently “new and compelling”[3] evidence upon the rights of the legally acquitted. The more insightful question is that, although, the need for justice seen to be done is of greater influence in achieving the interest of justice than the strict interpretation of rule against double jeopardy, does it necessarily follow that the same greatly improves justice? This essay will analyze the importance of the rule against double jeopardy and will weigh it against the rights of the accused persons in the eyes of the law by analyzing two overarching concepts: the principle of finality and the prejudicial effect. It will demonstrate how the Criminal Justice Act seeks to strike a balance

  • Word count: 643
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

After Woollin, the law of Intention remains unclear, but nonetheless works in a satisfactory manner. Discuss

After Woollin, the law of Intention remains unclear, but nonetheless works in a satisfactory manner. Discuss With regard to the law of intention it was hoped ‘Woollin would have seen an end to the misunderstanding of the criminal laws concept of intention.’[1] The law of intention has been one that has been at the centre of ‘theoretical debate and judicial disagreement’[2] for many decades and is still one that is not completely understood, even though many have tried to define it. There are two types of intention, direct and oblique. While direct intention has proven much easier to define, oblique intention continues to create confusion within the courts and this has caused several questions to arise, particularly questions regarding good motives and morality. ‘The courts and even Parliament have attempted to define the concept of oblique intention’[3] yet with little success. While many would argue that the Nedrick[4] and Woollin[5] guidelines has resolved the ‘lingering tension between a law of virtual certainty and guidelines based on Hyam-style recklessness,’[6] some would disagree and claim that Woollin has not actually had much affect on the law of intention, but simply changed the wording and failed to give the law a true definition of intention. Some may even go as far as arguing that there is still uncertainty within the law. However, while the

  • Word count: 2668
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Legal Research. In brief, Keeler supplied class A Drugs to the victim and when she started to show all the signs of a severe overdose, Keeler and the mother of the victim did not call for medical attention

Elizabeth Bennett Legal Research The case being discussed throughout this piece of academic writing concerns a case in the subject of Criminal Law, it is a case which will be heard in the Crown Court before a Judge and Jury. The defendant in question is, Rita Keeler who has been arrested after the death of her half-sister, Rachael Flemming. In brief, Keeler supplied class A Drugs to the victim and when she started to show all the signs of a severe overdose, Keeler and the mother of the victim did not call for medical attention, even though the defendant had experience of this herself and knew that medical attention would almost certainly be required. What needs to be established is if the defendant held a 'duty of care' is some form to the victim, and if so, when was this duty undertaken by the defendant. The defendant, upon review of the facts in this case may be held on the charge of Gross Negligent Manslaughter by Omission[1]. The omission committed in this case is the failure to seek medical help upon sight the victim’s clear overdose, what the jury will need to prove is whether that omission could be deemed so bad that it breaks the criminal law[2]. There are two main parts to the case and as above, an omission is committed but there is also a supply of drugs to the victim. I will discuss each of these points throughout. The charge which the defendant will face

  • Word count: 2489
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay