Law - Murder and Diminished Responsibilty
- Submitted by: Lordjackwilliams
- Views: 136
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 03/16/2016 07:34 AM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
THE DEFINITION OF MURDER COMES FROM SIR EDWARD COKE IN WHICH HE STATED MURDER IS THE UNLAWFUL KILLING OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING UNDER THE QUEEN'S PEACE WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
THE ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS TO CAUSE ANOTHER PERSON'S DEATH IN FACT (PAGGETT/WHITE) AND IN LAW ((SMITH/CHESHIRE)
*APPLY TO SCENARIO*
THE MENS REA OF MURDER IS MALICE AFORETHOUGHT EXPRESS(INTENT TO KILL ) OR IMPLIED (INTENT TO GBH) WHICH BOTH ARE SUFFICIENT FOR MURDER (VICKERS)
INTENT CAN EITHER BE DIRECT OR OBLIQUE. DIRECT INTENT IS WHERE IT WAS D'S AIM, PURPOSE,DESIRE (MOLONEY) OR DECISION TO BRING ABOUT THE RESULT (MOHAN). OBLIQUE INTENT IS WHERE THE JURY MAY FIND EVIDENCE BASED ON WHETHER THEY SUBJECTIVELY KNEW THAT THE RESULT WAS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN TO OCCUR AND D OBJECTIVELY KNEW THAT THIS RESULT WAS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN TO OCCUR (NEDRICK/WOOLIN, UPHELD IN MATTHEWS & ALLEYNE)
*APPLY TO SCENARIO*
D WOULD MOST LIKELY BE CHARGED WITH MURDER BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SUFFICIENT ELEMENTS OF MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS OF THE CRIME (UNLESS THEY COULD PLEAD A SUCCESFUL DEFENCE)
IF D WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER, THEY MAY WANT TO PLEAD FOR THE SPECIAL PARTIAL DEFENCE OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY. THIS MEANS THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE DEFENDANT AND MUST PROVE THAT THEY WERE SUFFERING WITH DR ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY. THE DEFENCE COMES FROM S.2 OF THE HOMICIDE ACT 1957 AND WAS AMENDED IN S.52 OF THE CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009. IF DEFENCE IS SUCCESFUL THE CHARGE WOULD BE VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER INSTEAD OF MURDER. THE DEFENCE HAS 4 KEY ELEMENTS.
THE FIRST ELEMENT BEING AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER THE D MUST HAVE BEEN SUFFERING FROM AN ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING (S.52 (1) ). THE DEFINITION OF ABNORMALITY COMES FROM BRYNE 1960 WHERE HE STATES “A STATE OF MIND SO DIFFERENT FROM A ORDINARY PERSON, THAT THE REASONABLE MAN WOULD TERM IT ABNORMAL"
THE SECOND ELEMENT IS THAT THIS ABNORMALITY MUST HAVE AROSE FROM A RECOGNISED MENTAL CONDITION (S.52 (1) (a). THERE IS...
THE ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS TO CAUSE ANOTHER PERSON'S DEATH IN FACT (PAGGETT/WHITE) AND IN LAW ((SMITH/CHESHIRE)
*APPLY TO SCENARIO*
THE MENS REA OF MURDER IS MALICE AFORETHOUGHT EXPRESS(INTENT TO KILL ) OR IMPLIED (INTENT TO GBH) WHICH BOTH ARE SUFFICIENT FOR MURDER (VICKERS)
INTENT CAN EITHER BE DIRECT OR OBLIQUE. DIRECT INTENT IS WHERE IT WAS D'S AIM, PURPOSE,DESIRE (MOLONEY) OR DECISION TO BRING ABOUT THE RESULT (MOHAN). OBLIQUE INTENT IS WHERE THE JURY MAY FIND EVIDENCE BASED ON WHETHER THEY SUBJECTIVELY KNEW THAT THE RESULT WAS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN TO OCCUR AND D OBJECTIVELY KNEW THAT THIS RESULT WAS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN TO OCCUR (NEDRICK/WOOLIN, UPHELD IN MATTHEWS & ALLEYNE)
*APPLY TO SCENARIO*
D WOULD MOST LIKELY BE CHARGED WITH MURDER BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SUFFICIENT ELEMENTS OF MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS OF THE CRIME (UNLESS THEY COULD PLEAD A SUCCESFUL DEFENCE)
IF D WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER, THEY MAY WANT TO PLEAD FOR THE SPECIAL PARTIAL DEFENCE OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY. THIS MEANS THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE DEFENDANT AND MUST PROVE THAT THEY WERE SUFFERING WITH DR ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY. THE DEFENCE COMES FROM S.2 OF THE HOMICIDE ACT 1957 AND WAS AMENDED IN S.52 OF THE CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009. IF DEFENCE IS SUCCESFUL THE CHARGE WOULD BE VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER INSTEAD OF MURDER. THE DEFENCE HAS 4 KEY ELEMENTS.
THE FIRST ELEMENT BEING AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER THE D MUST HAVE BEEN SUFFERING FROM AN ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING (S.52 (1) ). THE DEFINITION OF ABNORMALITY COMES FROM BRYNE 1960 WHERE HE STATES “A STATE OF MIND SO DIFFERENT FROM A ORDINARY PERSON, THAT THE REASONABLE MAN WOULD TERM IT ABNORMAL"
THE SECOND ELEMENT IS THAT THIS ABNORMALITY MUST HAVE AROSE FROM A RECOGNISED MENTAL CONDITION (S.52 (1) (a). THERE IS...