Criminal Law,dealing with the subject of murder and how applying the general principles of criminal law will help us in deciding an outcome
Criminal Law LR2S07 This essay will be dealing with the subject of murder and how applying the general principles of criminal law will help us in deciding an outcome. To begin with murder can be defined as 'a common law offence, which is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought.'1 It is important to establish whether Mens Rea and Actus Reus are present. In most cases is an act of crime because the person committing it intended to do something wrong. This mental state is generally referred to as Mens rea, or guilty mind. Mens rea expresses a belief that people should be punished only when they have acted in a way that makes them morally blameworthy.2 The Actus Reus is a guilty action, which may not necessarily involve intent. The main facts of the case are as follows: John was a Carsea United supporter, he brought three flares to the match with he planned to release into the crowd to disrupt the match is the opposition, Swaniff City, were in the lead. After half time, Swaniff City were clearly leading so John decided to release the flares. He points them to the Swaniff City fans, whom he hates passionately. One of the flares hits Pablo; John laughs and flees the scene. Pablo is eventually collected by an ambulance but due to the drivers careless driving, is involved in an accident. Another ambulance comes after a considerable
Criminal Justice, Miscarriages of justice
Criminal Justice in England and Wales Miscarriages of justice Everyone agrees that the aim of the law is to achieve justice. Many argue that justice is the ultimate goal to which the law should strive. But what does the word 'justice' mean? Kelson, whose theories were first published in 1911 and further developed in his General Theory of Law and State published in 1945, suggested that it is not scientifically possible to define justice because it is simply a matter of individual preferences and values. However in simple terms, 'justice' means 'fairness'. Clearly what is 'fair' to one person may be regarded as unfair to another but, although it is impossible to agree everything, it is hoped consensus can be reached in a society on many features of a 'just' legal system. There are two basic definitions of justice within the law- formal (or procedural) justice substantive justice. Any state has a legal system through which justice is dispensed. The whole process of enforcing legal rules is formal justice. If someone breaks the legal rules the state takes action. The state dispensing 'justice.' Formal justice may be defined as: 'The following of legal rules and treating like cases alike.' Formal justice is about applying the rules fairly to everyone. It is a fundamental principle that one should be above the law and those who administer the law should do so without
Analysis of the law relating to the offence of Murder and relevant offences of Provocation, Diminished Responsibility and Intoxication.
This continuous assessment requires a detailed analysis of the law relating to the offence of Murder and relevant offences of Provocation, Diminished Responsibility and Intoxication. The issue of non-fatal offences will also be dealt with. Murder is the killing of a human being by a human being within the Queen's peace, death arising within 3 years of the act by the accused and also caused by the act of the accused. The actus reus of Murder therefore requires that the defendant should have caused the death of the victim through an act of his/her own. Death should be caused within the Queen's peace and three years of the act of the defendant.1 In this question the defendant Mo killed her husband Billy. It was Mo's act of setting fire to Billy's bed, which caused the death of Billy who is the victim in this instance. It is required to be proved that death was caused by the act of the defendant. Murder is a consequence crime and therefore accordingly requires causation to be proved in order for the actus reus of murder to be proved. It is in essence proving that it was the act of the defendant that caused the death of the victim. Causation is a 2-stage test and requires firstly causation in fact. The test for causation in fact is the 'But for test'2. But for the act of the defendant, would the victim still have suffered the consequences and if not then there is causation in
Criminal Law - Problem Question - Homicide
Assignment No.2 "Alan, a soldier, was home for the weekend. He possessed several rifles. In a drunken argument with his father, Brian, as to who was the better shot with a gun, Brian threatened to break Alan's nose. Alan was afraid of his father but he was the first to load one of the rifles and, a little wobbly on his feet, took aim at Brian and, in haste, shot and injured him. Feeling shocked, Alan fired a second shot at an expensive vase which shattered. Alan managed to call for an ambulance but the ambulance was delayed by a freak storm. Eventually, Brian arrived at hospital where his injuries were treated. After several days he developed an infection in the wound. He was treated by Doctor Chris with an antibiotic to which Brian was allergic. The next day, seeing that he was no better, Doctor Chris administered more of the same antibiotic to Brian in extremely large doses. That night, weak, delirious and close to death, Brian jumped out of the window when he saw the doctor approaching. He fell two storeys to the ground and was killed. Alan confessed to the police that he had lately been hearing voices and believed that his father Brian was the devil. He had not wanted to kill but had wanted to frighten his father. Doctor Chris confessed to the police that he was diabetic and had not had time to eat properly after taking his insulin. Discuss the liability of
Antigone: "and Justice for all…"
Megan Yamamoto Thill, B. Humanities Core 1A October 16, 20 Antigone: "and Justice for all..." Sophocles' Antigone revolves around the issue of how justice is defined and carried out. Both main characters, Creon and Antigone, claim to have the law and Gods on their sides. Each side presents their case with adequate evidence that their reasoning is the absolute truth and that their version of carrying out justice is correct. Creon believes that his power of being king will justify his action of leaving Polynices unburied, while Antigone leans more towards tradition of burial for her form of justice. However, it is their inability to come to a compromise over the absolute definition of justice, in addition to the lack of a solid and unambiguous explanation of the word, which leads their conflict to escalate to drastic heights. The Oxford English Dictionary defines justice as the ability to be righteous, fair and truthful when dealing with a certain situation. In Sophocles' Antigone this definition of justice is partially applied to both Creon and Antigone's state of affairs. On the one side, Creon gives his outlook on justice through his action of leaving the dead body of Polynices unburied. He believes that justice will be served in this manner to the so-called traitor for fighting against his city. However, on the opposing side is Antigone who believes justice will be
Art and part liability
Criminal Law Coursework Word Count: 1,692 In Criminal Law, the principle of art and part liability is a form of derivative criminal liability. Consider and explain how criminal liability might be established on an art and part basis. In addition, consider how an individual may be held liable for the unintended consequences of a course of criminal conduct, and how such an individual might defend any such allegations. Art and part liability is a form of derivative criminal liability meaning: "where two or more people engage together in committing a crime, each actor is equally guilty of the whole crime irrespective of the particular role played by each individual".1 A typical example of art and part liability is a bank robbery. For example, a gang perform the physical act of the crime: the actus reus; the robbing of the bank, with one man sitting in the getaway car. All men are guilty of the crime. If one member inside the bank panics and kills someone, the getaway driver is as guilty of murder as the killer and all the gang members involved. There are, however, defences available to reduce the extent of criminal liability, for example, if the accused was unaware that the killer had a weapon and made no prior agreement or planning for the carrying or use of the weapon, then he would not be responsible for the murder, there would be no art and part liability for this
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Before 1986 the police dealt with all prosecutions brought forward. However, this became a critical issue as it was argued that the organisation dealing with the crime enquiry should be independent from the organisation dealing with the prosecution. Inattention of the prosecutions dealt by the police, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure concluded after a report that it would be beneficial if the prosecutions were a self-governing establishment. After the analysis of the report the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was finally set up and began running in 1986. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 established it. As from 1986 all prosecutions were done by the CPS, which meant the police and the CPS now conducted different roles within the criminal justice system. The head of the CPS is the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP). The Attorney General appoints the DPP, who must be a qualified lawyer for at least 10years. Below the DPP are the Chief Crown Prosecutors who are head of one of the 42 areas of which the country is dived up and below them is the Branch Crown Prosecutors who head their sub-divided CPS branch. Within the legal system the police have the duty to obtain as much evidence against a defendant. Once gaining all relevant evidence, they have the option of doing any of the following with the suspect. They can take no further action, they can give an
![Under the current law, homeowners are permitted to use "reasonable force" against intruders.[3] However this standard is criticised for being unclear and weighted too much in favour of the intruders.[4] Under the proposed law, homeowners would be convicte](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/950247/listing/950247_1.jpg)
Under the current law, homeowners are permitted to use "reasonable force" against intruders.[3] However this standard is criticised for being unclear and weighted too much in favour of the intruders.[4] Under the proposed law, homeowners would be convicte
Introduction Following the high profile cases of Tony Martin and Munir Hussian,1 the UK Conservative Party has signaled it will introduce new laws providing householders with a stronger defense against criminal liability where they use force to defend themselves against intruders.2 Under the current law, homeowners are permitted to use "reasonable force" against intruders.3 However this standard is criticised for being unclear and weighted too much in favour of the intruders.4 Under the proposed law, homeowners would be convicted only where they used force that was "grossly disproportionate".5 This essay discusses whether such legislative reform is appropriate by first looking at how the current law operates and its main areas of criticism. It then analyses the proposed law and considers whether it adequately improves on the current law. The current law As a general rule in common law, householders are entitled to use "reasonable force" to protect themselves, others or their property.6 This rule provides householders with a justifiable defence against a charge of murder or other levels of assault where they kill or injure the intruder.7 The burden of proving the householders did not act in defence rests with the prosecution.8 The Court has made it clear that "reasonable force" bears the same meaning in the context of defence as section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967
Chain of causation problem question. The given case is concerned with the law on homicide in English Criminal Law. Albert is likely to be accused of three different offences; the death of Bert amounting to involuntary manslaughter, the injuries suffered
Albert is a drug-dealer. One evening, selling heroin up a dark alley, he is first approached by Bert, with whom he has dealt several times in the past. Albert sells him the drug. Bert goes home, injects himself, and dies that same evening from an overdose. Next Albert is approached by Carol, whom he has never met before, but correctly supposes to be already heavily addicted. She is so desperate for the heroin that, at her request, he holds her arm steady while she injects herself there and then with the heroin he has supplied. Carol has a seizure and hits her head against a wall, resulting in severe bruising, but no lasting injury. Finally, Albert is approached by Diane, whom he knows well, and, at her suggestion they both go to her flat. There Diane injects herself with the heroin that Albert supplies. She passes out and Albert carries her to her bed, lying down beside her. When he awakes next morning Diane is looking very pale and is not conscious. Albert decides just to leave her there. Diane dies that afternoon from the heroin injection, never having recovered consciousness. The medical evidence is that her life would very likely have been saved had she received medical attention earlier in the day. Discuss the criminal liability of Albert, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory. You need not consider offences under the Misuse of
Criminal Law - A Miscarriage of Justice.
Criminal Law. Assignment 1. Part B. A Miscarriage of Justice. Hemis No:198788. Word count:3,000 As there is no material regarding this case 'in print' as of yet, all sources of information used have been attached as appendices. Sally Clark. o On the 9th November 1999, after a four week trial at Chester Crown Court, Sally Clark was found guilty and convicted of the murder of her two children. o The Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body which investigate miscarriages of justice in England, sent Sally Clark's case to the Court of Appeal. o On the 2nd October 2000 at the Court Of Appeal, the guilty verdict was upheld. They ruled that the case against Sally Clark was 'overwhelming' despite the support of fresh evidence. o The Criminal Cases Review Commission has ordered, that the case should go back to the Appeal Court because of the new medical evidence put forward, contained in a report overlooked at the original trial, which shows that Harry, the second baby to die, suffered from staph aureus at the time of his death, which almost certainly killed him o Sally is now serving the forth year of her life sentence. The case of Sally Clark is a long and difficult one to understand. There are no precedents in this area of law and no books have been published regarding this case, as it has not yet been recognised by the courts. This is a landmark case and Sally Clark
