On behalf of the prosecution service Your Honour, I ask that you find the defendant Ms Adrianna Stubbs, guilty of manslaughter under the Unlawful and Dangerous Act of Manslaughter. As prosecution the burden rests upon us and I shall see to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. Your Honour in order for a person to be found guilty under the Unlawful and Dangerous Act of Manslaughter, there is a such requirement that one must possess one of two factors. The first factor being Actus Reus, meaning ‘the guilty act’. It also falls upon there being a faliure to act. Your Honour, I make reference to the case of Crown v Cunningham (1957), the citation of this case is written in the skeleton arugement placed before you. In relation to Crown v Cunningham, …show more content…
I put to the court that Ms Stubbs had the requistite for Mens Rea as she suggested that Mr Smythe shall go on ‘one last trip’ with herself aswell as inviting Mr Smythe into her own place of residence to inject such a drug which she admitts in her statement that this took place. Not only did this occur but it was in her original plan to inject the deceased herself with illegal drugs as she had been and she calls ‘the normal practice’ to do so throughout the past 10 years. In realation to this case I shall put before you the case of DPP V Newbury and Jones (1970) AC 500 (HL). Lord Salmon stated; ‘ A defendant was guilty of manslaughter if it can be proved that he intentionally did an act which was unlawful and if the act in question was either unlawful or dangerous’. The resulting verdict in this case was finding both of the the defendant’s guilty of manslaughter even though in their defence they stated that they did not forsee that their act may cause harm to another, the court held; ‘There is no requirement that the defendant foresees that some harm will come from their …show more content…
As you undoubtbly are aware, the chain of causation can only be broken as in ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’ in one of three intervening acts. Acts of the defendant herself, acts of the victim himself or from a third party and lastly, from a natural act or an ‘act of god’ as you will. I can assure you Your Honour in this case neither of the above Novus Actus Interveniens mentioned took place. Ms Stubbs herself admits in her statement that she left the deceased, a known heroin addict, with a syringe full of heroin to inject himself with whilst he remained all alone in her place of residence in order to participate in such an act whilst she rather conveniently one may suggest ‘popped out’ as the final act in question took place. She also admits to suggesting the act of taking illegal drugs ‘one last time’ in the first place and not only sourcing out these illegal drugs but supplying Mr Smythe with
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
In December, 2011, two years after the unpleasant homicide of Wayne Boyce, the evidence collected for this particular crime suggested Prima Facie existing in the allegations made. The case then went to trial in the NSW Supreme Court of Australia. Where A 19 year old teenager referred by the initials of his name AH as he was a juvenile, pleaded guilty towards the manslaughter of Mr Wayne Boyce, 23 years of age.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
Consider People v. Decina, this defendant knew he was subject to epilictic attacks and seizures that might strike at any given moment. He also knew that a moving motor vehicle uncontrolled on public highways is highly dangerous. With this knowledge, and without anyone accompanying him, he deliberately took a chance by making a conscious choise of a course of action, in disregard of the consequences which he knew might follow from the conscious act, which in this case did ensue.
Unlike any other girlfriend who would get concerned soon after hearing this stochastic thought cropping up suddenly from her boyfriend, she urged Carter in unusual ways that he could try to kill himself. To her defense, her lawyer argued that the change in drug altered her attitude from a caring girlfriend to a more aggressive personality toward Conrad Roy. Even the psychiatrist at Carter’s trial reached the same conclusion, based on her medical reports, that he had to agree to the defense’s claim. After prosecution and defense attorneys presented their case, it was up to Judge Moniz to ascertain whether Michelle Carter was censurable or innocent of involuntary manslaughter. Moniz, in his ruling, established several comments that tied directly into Carter’s being found censurable on the charge of manslaughter.
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
Player: case report and emerging medicolegal practice questions. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 6(1), 40-46. doi:10.1111/j.1939-3938.2009.01064.x
First of all, I’d like to greatly thank the jury for coming and serving on this trial. Today, Mr. James King is being tried of the felony murder of Mr. Nesbitt. Mr. Nesbitt’s death is a sad truth to his family and his community. However, to place Mr. King as the murderer without solid evidence is preposterous. Remember, I’d like to remind the jury that if there is any reasonable doubt in the claim of Mr. King, you must vote not-guilty. I urge you to realise that by placing Mr. King in jail for 25 years to life, you will be compromising this young man’s entire future. I hope you make an informed decision to keep Mr. King out of jail.
Many people in London are not willing to accept murder as a form of justice as previous research reports and most especially the family of Mark Duggan. Duggan’s family together with many other people opposes the lawful killing arguing that the killing was not properly justified. On the other hand, the state of London carried out investigations and found out that the killing was vindicated and thus it was a lawful killing according to the metropolitan police. The report given by the government to mark the accountability of the killing of Mark Duggan lawfuly took a period of three and half years to be written and had been announced to the public and the family of Mark Duggan. The mother of Mark Duggan, Pamela Duggan said that the state’s report was just like a slap in the face because it took much time to come up with the report and thus Pamela as the mother of Mark did not trust the report. To some extent, Pamela Duggan was right because it is impossible for a state of a nation to carry out investigations for the killing of one person for a period of more than three years meaning that the investigations had been interfered with by government officials in the fear of being blamed of having murdered someone. At each and every stage of the investigation, the state has been seen to avoid the blame of having murdered Mark Duggan and
Injuries inflicted on Leanne’s body suggested that whoever caused her injuries intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
Her claim of duress did not meet the presence and immediacy requirements of s. 17 of the Criminal Code. When Ms.Ruzic committed the offence, Mirkovic the man who was threatening her was not present and she was not under any type of immediate threat, death or bodily harm. Ms.Ruzic successfully argued that s. 17 of the Code was unconstitutional because it violated her right to security of the person under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ms.Ruzic was acquitted on the charge of importing heroin. The Crown appealed the acquittal on the charge of importing heroin, but the court of appeal dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court agreed that s.17 breached s.7 of the Charter because then other people would be defenseless if the threat was not directly
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
The purpose of this Briefing Note is to inform the Minister about the case of R v. Parks, regarding the defense of Automatism and the relevant laws and judgments applicable to this case. The issue proposed relies on the public concern of the possible repetition of misbehavior. May 1987, Kenneth James Parks killed his mother in law, Barbra-Ann and severely injured his father in law, Denis Woods. Parks confessed his offence after the incident took place. The charges of first degree murder and attempted murder went before the Supreme court of Canada, using the defense of Automatism. The evidence was presented to a jury that led to the acquittal of Parks. Medical evidence provided from five physicians were used to conclude Parks was asleep during the incident. Medical