Problem Question on Homicide.

Authors Avatar
Problem Question on Homicide

This case is a murder case as a human being has been killed, this offence has no statutory

definition and carries a sentence of life imprisonment. The definition is 'unlawfully killing a

reasonable person who is in being'. The actus reus and the mens rea are satisfied in this

case with intent to cause the victim injury. In this problem considering the facts of the case,

the conviction of murder may be brought down to the charge of manslaughter, which is an

unlawful killing without malice aforethought. It has a lesser degree of blameworthiness.

There are two classifications of manslaughter which are 'involuntary' and 'voluntary'.

Voluntary manslaughter does not require the necessary malice aforethought for murder, it is

regarded as less blameworthy as in this problem case provocation is present. The fact of

intent is not brought up in this problem as Sandra instantly grabs a marble statuette and hits it

over Peters head killing him. Sandra was provoked by Peter hitting her on various
Join now!

occasions and this has caused her to become clinically depressed. Peter hitting and telling

Sandra that she is a hopeless wife and inadequate mother is enough to provoke her

behaviour. It was ruled in the case of Doughty (1986) that the continuous crying of a baby

is enough to provoke a person. Provocation comes under the Homicide Act 1957 in section

3. Therefore Sandra may rely on a partial defence of provocation to murder only, it reduces

the charge of murder to manslaughter To determine if Sandra was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay