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…
under section 23 of the Offences Against the Persons Act (1861) it states; ‘whosoever shall unlawfully cause to be administered to or taken by any other person, any poison or other destructive thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grevious bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony’. Also Your Honour in realation to this act under section 22, it states; ‘A person commits an offence if they believe; firstly, the act will be committed and secondly, the act will encourage or assisst it’s commission.’ Your Honour with having said this I believe the defendant had the Actus Reus required for commiting manslaughter under the Unlawful and Dangerous Act as Ms Stubbs committed the unlawful act of both supplying and providing the deceased with contaminated drugs. This consequently resulted in causing the death of another human being. The second requirement you must possess to commit such an act is that of Mens Rea which requires objective foreseeable of the risk of bodily harm.
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…
action.’ As you will undoubtably be aware of your honour, the defendant may not have had any intention to harm the deceased in such a way. Infact Ms Stubbs may not have even contemplated the death of the victim at all. Under the Offences Against The Persons Act (1861), section 22, under the heading; ‘Encouraging or Assissting Crime,’ it clearly states; ‘To establish this type of manslaughter, it must be shown the accussed had firstly committed an unlawful act, secondly that the act was dangerous in the sense that a reasonable person would inevitably have recognised that it carried some risk of harm, thirdly the act committed was a substantial cause of death and lastly, the accused intended to commit the act as distinct from intending its consequence. Your Honour I put before you that there was no break of causation in this case.
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
them. By supplying the deceased with such a drug and by being both the occupier of the preimises and knowingly permitting such an act, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, section 8, it states that these three acts are to be punishable. Under section 7 of said act it reads; ‘It shall not be lawful for a person to either supply nor offer one controlled drug to another. On behalf of the prosecution service, the Unlawful and Dangerous Act Maslaughter was the contribution Ms Stubbs played in Mr Smythe’s death. Although she did not physically inject him herself (for the first time in ten years, one may add), he would not have been put in that position ‘but for’ the defendant. In relation to the argument I would like to bring to your attention the case of Crown V Paggett (1985), the defendant in this case was found guilty of manslaughter in a situation where the contribution to the victim’s death was not the main cause of her death but the victim would not have been in the situation ‘but for’ the defendant. Your Honour, in the case of which I have presented before you, I ask you find the defendant, Ms Adrianna Stubbs guilty as charged under the Unlawful and Dangerous Act of Manslaughter.
Injuries inflicted on Leanne’s body suggested that whoever caused her injuries intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
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
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
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.
Actus Reus: It was never unclear if the accused was responsible for the act occurring. There were several eye witness testimonies placing her as the offender which was backed up by CCTV footage from a camera in the lane. Furthermore, at the beginning of the trial the offender pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of constructive manslaughter and that it was caused by reckless driving on her behalf. By claiming manslaughter the offender immediately takes full responsibility for the act regardless of what charge they are handed.
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.
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 evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
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.
Stephens,R., (2002) The moral meaning of morphine drips: A modern shibboleth denied. Midwest Quarterly, 43(3), 346.
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).
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
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