This essay will look at the possible liability of Alice and Briony for the murder of David.
Law Alice and Briony belong to a group of animal rights activists called Born Free. They are involved in a national campaign against Eurodrug who own a chain of stores that sell pharmaceutical and cosmetic products. The group believes that some of the products have been developed by testing their possible side effects upon animals. One evening Alice and Briony plant a bomb inside a carrier bag which they place inside the doorway of one of Eurodrug's main shops in a large shopping mall. They telephone the police to warn them that the bomb has been timed to explode in two police to warn them that bomb has been timed to explode in two hours' time. The area is quickly cleared of all members of the public and David, an army bomb disposal expert, is brought in to de-fuse the device. Unfortunately the bomb explodes as he is trying to move it and David is seriously injured. He is rushed to hospital where he refuses to undergo a blood transfusion as it is against his religious beliefs. Doctors are of the opinion that such a transfusion would almost certainly have saved his life. Alice and Briony have now been charged with David's murder. Discuss their possible liability. 50 marks This essay will look at the possible liability of Alice and Briony for the murder of David. In order to do so, a definition of what murder is in English law will need to be provided. Murder is a common
Female Genitals Mutilations
INTRODUCTION " If your daughter has not been excised...No man in the village will marry her. It is an obligation. We have done it, we do it, and we will continue to do it...She has no choice. I decide. Her viewpoint is not important." 1 A father from the Ivory Coast said this phrase to the New York Times. That phrase is not uncommon among parents who exercise Female Genital Mutilation. This 42 words phrase clearly explained that even if FGM is an act of violence against women and girls and also violate human rights, it is still a cultural tradition, deeply rooted in religious. Hence, until today, not many choose to deviate from the norm because much social pressure will follow as consequence. Different people have different views2 about FGM.3 OVERVIEW OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION What is FGM? Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is also called Female Circumcision (FC). 4 FGM comprises of all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural, religious or other non- therapeutic reasons.5 There are three broad types of FGM.6 The mildest form of FGM, clitoridectomy is the removal or amputation of all or part of the clitoris,7 while excision includes the removal of the entire clitoris and the cutting of labia minora.8 The most extreme form of FGM is infibulation, the removal of all
Questions on Criminal Law.
Criminal Law 1 Session 2001-2002 Coursework Assessment (1)(a)(i) There is no need for the Crown to establish mens rea here. Mens rea is the latin maxim for the guilty mind indicating the criminal responsibility of the accused, relative to a particular crime. This is a strict liability offence, found only in statutory crimes, which means that all the Crown are required to prove is the actus reus of the offence, being the behavioural element or the guilty act. This offence is a conduct crime where the definition of the crime contains a type of behaviour only and no resultant damage or injury. Thus, the Crown would only require to prove that Angela was in possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place and they would not need to consider her mental state while doing so. The Crown would need to show that the scythe and axe fall into the category of article to which the section of the Act applies, which appears to be straightforward as evidenced by their blades. Having dealt with the first part of the description of the offence, the question is introduced as to whether or not the field may be defined as a place to which "the public have or are permitted access" as per subsection (7) of the Act. On the one hand the field is private land owned by the farmer therefore not public, but on the other hand, as Angela has proved, the public could gain
Crime Control Versus Due Process.
Crime Control Versus Due Process Criminal justice systems are regarded as having two functions, or are supposed to 'deliver' two 'outputs': on the one hand the effective management and control of criminality and on the other, justice. These two 'outputs' do not necessarily co-exist smoothly. Concentration on delivering justice does not necessarily enhance the ability of criminal justice institutions to deliver effective crime control and vice versa. Therefore particular agencies or policies may gravitate towards one or other of these outputs. This is sometimes seen as the contrast between a 'due process' or a 'crime control' orientation At the present time there is considerable debate about both the crime control efficiency of the criminal justice system (falling clear up rates for crime, problems of dealing with organised crime etc.) and also its capacity to deliver justice (criticism of proposals to restrict jury trials, the tendency toward 'pre-emptive criminalisation' observable in a number of recent pieces of legislation) The French philosopher-sociologist Michel Foucault wrote about the 'governmentalization of the state' as one of the major developments which distinguish modern industrial societies from their predecessors. He is talking about a shift from preindustrialized society where the main concern of the ruler was with his personal authority or sovereignty to
Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins. On appeal, the Court of Appeal was asked to determine whetherit would be lawful for surgeons to operate on the pair to separate them.
Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins. On appeal, the Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether it would be lawful for surgeons to operate on the pair to separate them. The implications of separation were that M would certainly die within minutes and that J would most probably live. On the other hand, if the twins were not separated ultimately both would die within a matter of months. M's own heart and lungs were inadequate to sustain M's life. While joined to J, M survived only by relying on J's heart to pump the blood oxygenated by J through both twins' bodies. Sustaining both lives was imposing an excessive strain on J's heart. It was common ground that J's heart would fail within approximately 3-6 months. M's death would inevitably follow J's. On these facts, the Court of Appeal held that it would be lawful (though not required) for surgeons to carry out the operation. To the extent that any general proposition can be extracted from the decision, its gist seems to be that a defence of necessity can extend to lethal acts undertaken in order to negate a threat to life even where that threat is an innocent one. Hence, on the best view of the law after Re A, the story told of the petrified passenger during the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, who had to be pushed off a ladder (and who apparently then drowned) in order that others may survive, may
What implications, if any, should a theory of justice have for the institution of the family?
What implications, if any, should a theory of justice have for the institution of the family? There is much debate between contemporary political theorists as to the significance of the family within the political sphere. Historically, the family has developed under a patriarchal model with the husband and father at the head of the household. Typically the man would be the main breadwinner whilst the wife would be confined to the domestic sphere. However, contemporary feminists, most significantly Susan Moller Okin, are now beginning to challenge traditional conceptions of familial structure and the relationships within it. Susan Moller Okin is a Rawlsian feminist. Both her main work on this topic, Justice, Gender and the Family, and several journal articles she has written, draw comparisons between her theories and those of Rawls. She describes Rawls as having "...very great potential..."1 and attempts to build upon his works to further her ideas as to the place of justice within the family. Rawls was one of the first political theorists of his era to admit the importance of the family by claiming in Political Liberalism that the nature of the family should automatically belong to the basic structure of society, along with "...the political constitution, the legally recognised forms of property and the organisation of the economy."2 However, Okin disagrees with Rawls on a
Two of the keystones of our right to a fair trial, the right to silence and the presumption of innocence, have been compromised in recent years; this compromise has however been necessary in the interests of justice.(TM) Discuss.
'Two of the keystones of our right to a fair trial, the right to silence and the presumption of innocence, have been compromised in recent years; this compromise has however been necessary in the interests of justice.' Discuss. Every person has the right to a fair trial both in civil and in criminal cases, and the effective protection of all human rights very much depends on the practical availability at all times of access to competent, independent and impartial courts of law which can, and will, administer justice fairly. Under Art.6 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, it states that 'everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty', therefore the burden is on the prosecution to prove the case. This means that it must prove both the required actus reus and the required mens rea. The prosecution may also have to disprove a defence, which the defendant raises as was confirmed in the case of Woolington1 where the judge at the trail told the jury that the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant killed his wife. However, for certain defences, the reverse onus places the burden of proof on the defendant2. The second keystone of our right to a fair trial is the right to remain silent. Murphy (2005) notes that the right of silence has two aspects, the right not to be compelled to give evidence, and the
The Concept of Impossibility In Inchoate Offences.
THE CONCEPT OF IMPOSSIBILITY IN INCHOATE OFFENCES . The concept of impossibility occurs in all three inchoate offences; incitement, conspiracy and attempts. This concept entails the fact that in some circumstances the planned act which, if carried would result in an unlawful offence, sometimes becomes impossible, and no offence can be committed or is committed. This is well illustrated in Haughton v Smith (1975) AC 476, where the defendant was charged and convicted of attempting to handle stolen goods. Prior to this however, the police had already recovered the stolen goods but proceeded to catch the rest of the people involved, which resulted in the arrest of the defendant. The court held that at the time of the alleged offence the goods, being in the lawful custody of the police, ceased to be stolen goods as stated by section 24(3) of the Theft Act 1968.1 Inchoate offences are used where the full substantive offence does not occur. Of all the three inchoate offences, incitement has no statutory basis; it is governed by the common law. The actus reus of incitement requires proof that the accused by means of encouragement, persuasion, threats or pressure sought to influence another to commit an offence.2 Generally, incitement occurs between two people, however an incitement can be unilateral as seen in R v Most (1881) 7 QBD 244. Here the defendant had published an
Where two or more parties embark on a joint enterprise, what is the basis of liability for an accomplice for crimes committed by his partners which are not intended by him?
Criminal Law 2 Coursework Where two or more parties embark on a joint enterprise, what is the basis of liability for an accomplice for crimes committed by his partners which are not intended by him? The liability of accomplices to crimes is set out in the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s81. This states that 'the liability of an accessory is liability for an act done by the principal'2. 'Accessory' should be given its ordinary meaning, per Att-Gen 1 of 19753 and if each party fulfils part of the conduct element and each has sufficient mens rea they can be tried as co-principals. The accomplice does not perform the actus reus itself, but there must be an actus reus committed by his partner. The conduct element is satisfied by the accomplice giving assistance, encouragement or procuring before, or at the time of the commission of the principal offence. This may consist of holding a woman down while she is raped4, or keeping watch5, supplying instruments6 or information, this is aiding and abetting; by setting out to see what happens and taking appropriate steps to produce the offence, this is procuring the offence. Voluntary presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient, some active help is needed (Coney7). A counselled offence must have been committed by the person counselled, therefore there must be (I) contract between the parties, (ii) connection between the
Discuss the range of options available to courts when passing a sentence.
a) Discuss the range of options available to courts when passing a sentence. b) Why do courts with concurrent jurisdiction pass different sentences? There is a range of sentencing options available to the courts, each one designed to suit the relevant crime that has been committed. This could be referred to as a "hierarchy" of sentences starting with a simple fine and ending with something more serious such as a life sentence. A sentence is passed, following a "guilty" verdict by the jury. Once this is passed then the judge attempts to find a punishment to fit the crime- the sentence. However, he/she has to take several factors into account. These are The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and The Common law tariff system. The first Act stated states that judges have to now concentrate on a swing away from punishments based on a policy of "just deserts" and concentrate on an area known as deterrence. Deterrence is a type of sentencing that aims to stop the prevention of further crimes. This is idea is based on the point that if there is a prospect of an unpleasant punishment, this alone will prevent the commission of further crimes. The chance of detention is the basis of deterrence, as this will ensure it is effective. If there is only a minor chance of getting caught and then following this, being prosecuted then deterrence will be
