Criminal Responsibility and Homicide

Criminal Responsibility and Homicide

A killing can be either lawful or unlawful. Killings that are lawful

are those by the police, armed services and doctors in strictly

controlled circumstances. An unlawful homicide is considered to be

those of: murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter,

infanticide and death caused by dangerous driving or careless

driving. Homicide in criminal law is the killing of a human being by

the act, procurement, or negligence of another.

Murder is the ‘killing of a human being with malice aforethought’,

where the person will have the intention to kill or cause serious

harm. It is a common law offence that was developed by judges. When

someone has been convicted of murder, the judge will impose a

mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

Children between 10 and 14 years of age may be found guilty of a crime

if the court believes they knew what they were doing was wrong.

Children over 14 are assumed in law to know the difference between

right and wrong. For defendants under the age of eighteen that are

detained under her Majesty’s pleasure, is always 12 years. Lord Woolf

has set out guidelines when deciding how long a person should stay in

prison for being released. These starting points are: ‘a whole life

order’, a ‘term of 10 years’ and a ‘term of 15 years’. A whole life

order is where the judge believes that the defendant should never be

considered for release early. The offence must have been exceptionally

high and the defendant must be over 21 years of age. A 30 year order

can be for a defendant that is 18 years or over, however not any older

than 21 years old. This is for...

... middle of paper ...

... arisen to break the chain of causation causing the

defendant’s act to cause the actual death. Therefore, the defendant

would be able to escape liability if he/she could prove the novus

actus interveniens had caused the death and not their act of violence

or omission.

Sunil refuses to give consent for a blood transfusion and dies two

hours later. Anwar may claim that Sunil has aggravated his condition

or refused medical treatment, but this does not always mean that a

defendant can escape liability. For example in the case of Wall’s

1801, the Governor of Goree had inflicted an illegal flogging of 800

lashes on the deceased and was charged with his murder. He tried to

argue that the victim had aggravated the condition by consuming strong

alcohol to deaden the pain of punishment. But the judge refused this

claim.