(1) a. ‘To be liable for any homicide offence the defendant must cause the death of a human being’ Elliot and Quinn cited in The Open University ‘OU’ (2015a 2.3). The actus reus of murder involves three main elements. Causation, resulting in death and that the victim must be a human being. Causation includes factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation can be verified using the ‘but for’ test, such as the victim would not have died ‘but for’ the actions of the defendant. Legal causation is tested by distinguishing whether the act or omission by the defendant was an operative or significant cause of death. The modern mens rea as summarised by Elliot and Quinn (2012) Cited in OU (2015b 2.3) involves the ‘intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm’. This includes indirect intent, in that the outcome was virtually certain as well as direct intent, in that there was a desired outcome. It is the job of the judge, depending on the evidence presented to direct the jury on either the test of direct intention or test of indirect intention. To be convicted of murder the defendant must also be proven to be of ‘sound mind’. b) The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act …show more content…
Advice will also be provided on whether Snowdonia Camping Holidays Ltd has committed the offence of corporate manslaughter. References will be made to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMACHA 2007). References will also be made to the definition of murder and whether Mr Jones’ actions or omissions satisfy the criteria to be committed of the offence of murder. The important aspects of the facts are that two deaths occurred on the property of Snowdonia Camping Holidays Ltd, which is owned and managed by Mr Jones. It needs to be established from the facts what factors amounted to causing these deaths, why they occurred and who is
Case, Adeels Palace v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 entails a defendant, Adeels Palace Pty Ltd and two plaintiffs, Anthony Moubarak and Antoin Fayez Bou Najem. On New Year’s Eve 2002, a function, hosted by Adeels was open to members of the public, with a charged admission fee. A dispute broke out in the restaurant. One man left the premises and later returned with a firearm. He seriously injured both respondents. One was shot in the leg and other in the stomach. The plaintiffs separately brought proceedings against the defendant in the District Court of New South Wales (NSW), claiming damages for negligence. The trial judge issued Bou Najem $170,000 and Moubarak $1,026,682.98. It was held that the duty of care was breached by the defendant as they ‘negligently’ failed to employ security for their function. The breach of duty and resulted in the plaintiff’s serious injuries.
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.
Corporate crime (state crimes) are invisible, they are either not persecuted or not seen as crime, this is because the state have the power to criminalize or decriminalize acts . The Hillsborough disaster is one of the most serious crimes in the UK which was not seen as a crime but rather labelled as an accidental death. This essay will present the facts and highlight the various legal issues with regards to the Hillsborough disaster that took place on 15 April 1989. It will first of all state the facts of the event, engaging the international human rights provision, domestic legislation and will further analyse the access to justice doctrine as regards to the Hillsborough case.
Murder should include the elements of purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances showing extreme indifference to the value of human life (Brody & Acker, 2010).
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
Actus Reus of Murder When a man of sound memory over the age of discretion unlawfully kills
...cts which crime to charge the defendant with, but then the jury determines whether the defendant was actually guilty of second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter.
...t I do not think that the evidence presented is enough for a conviction to sentence any man or woman to death.
Held: Evidence would have been admissible as part of the res gestae because not only was there a close association in place and time between the statement and the shooting, but also the way in which the statement came to be made, in a call for the police and the tone of voice used showed intrinsically that the statement was being forced from the wife by an overwhelming pressure of contemporary events. 9 Res Gestae, Topic 3, Law of Evidence. Prepared by Ikram Abdul Sattar, 10. R v. Andrews [1987] 1 All ER 513 where the appellant and another man knocked on the door of the victim’s flat and when the victim opened it, the appellant stabbed him in the chest and stomach with a knife and the two men then robbed the flat.
However, she would have been aware of a high probability of serious injury or death and therefore was found guilty of oblique intention. In this case causing harm was not intended but resulted.
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
A person who's accused of unlawful killing in a court of law may be faced with a manslaughter charge by the prosecutor. Since there are different scenario's in which a unlawful killing can occur, there are different charges that come with the type of circumstances that surround each case. That is, first and second degree murder charges come into play as the murderer in question will need to be measured up which will tell the public and or jury if his or her intension was premeditated or not. Moreover, the law uses a another general term called manslaughter which has it's own two divisions as well.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.