Legal System and Skills - Essay Example

Running head: R v James; R v Karimi [2006] EWCA Crim 14 Summary Leslie Hall James stabbed, punched and suffocated killing his wife Jennifer in the year 1979. Having had an unhappy marriage, this couple had separated on December 1978. Mrs. James then left their matrimonial home where she formed another relationship with Nigel Dutfield. Disturbances arose between the appellant, Mrs. James and her new lover Mr. Dutfield between the time of separation and the offence that called for police intervention. On the fateful morning, the appellant left his work place for Mrs. James home. He carried along a knife that he previously had borrowed from a colleague1. After killing her, James dragged the body wrapped in a counterpane to the stairs and went back to work. Mr. Dutfield later discovered the body, forcing way into the house. On 26 October 1979 the prosecuting counsel at Nottingham Crown Court confirmed based on medical evidence that had been availed that the crown could accept this was manslaughter caused by diminished responsibility. The defence, however, was not willing to accept this plea of guilty to manslaughter. None of the psychiatrist reports that had been obtained from four doctors was presented to the jury2. When this matter was taken to trial, judge Peter Pain directed that the defendant should be accounted fully responsibility of the action for the defence did not seek arguing diminished responsibility. On January 1980 on re-arraignment, he pleaded guilty of manslaughter, but not guilty of murder. This led to the advancement of the plea based on provocation, but it was unacceptable to the crown. The trial thus proceeded with the single issue of provocation where the judge advised the jury to apply the double test. At the time, a recent decision of the House of Lords was Camplin [1978] AC 705. The judge later directed that standards of self-control expected of a man who is reasonable should be applied3. The appeal was referred by CCRC on the basis that the decision in Morgan Smith had changed the legal position. Psychiatrist evidence that demonstrated the appellant’s ability of behavior control to be impaired was rendered admissible and relevant by this decision. Since that reference by CCRC the decision has supervened in Holley. Before the appeal could be heard, a Privy Council decision in the A-G, Jersey v Holley was announced. Karimi, the appellant, was a great Communist Freedom Fighter in the Kurdistan a movement he had joined in the year 1984. Two years after joining the movement he married his wife, Mehri Rezai, who was in the same movement and two together they had two children. In 1990, the appellant Karimi moved to Sweden having been injured in Kurdistan while fighting. A year later, he was joined by his wife after which their marriage began to deteriorate. In about 1992, the appellant went back to Kurdistan and fought further for just a short period of time. Their relationship was not improving and the appellant moved out to take a room in YMCA hostel4. At this time he enrolled in an English course where he made friends with Sirvan Kabadi who had also been a freedom fighter. He later killed his friend. Through the appellant, his wife met Mr. Kabadi in 1996. They advanced to lovers later on in the year. In December the same year, the appellant was told by his wife that the relationship was no more making him leave their house in a state of emotions. The wife concerned about the appellant’s welfare was afraid he would commit suicide and therefore telephoned YMCA. The appellant’s wife had arrangements with her lover, Mr Kabadi to meet in the afternoon of December 6 but later cancelled the arrangements. Earlier during the same day, Mr Kabadi and the appellant were seen getting along well with no indication of animosity. Security video at the block of Mr Kabadis flats showed the appellant entering the block at 3.15pm. It also showed the appellant leave 65 minutes later, which was after killing Mr Kabadi. The appellant upon police questioning, admitted the killing and went ahead to help the police to search for the knife. He was then arrested in the possession of a Stanley knife which as he said, he had bought to kill himself. He also gave an account of that killing to his wife partly in a meeting prior to the arrest and partly through a telephone conversation from where he had been detained in hospital. The conversation was also taped by police5. In the prosecution case, the appellant killed Mr Kavadi aiming either to kill or to cause serious bodily harm. In the defence case, the deceased had come to the appellant’s room carrying a knife and pronounced an insulting phrase’ Besharef’ which meant “you have no honor” . The appellant in his defence claimed to have killed the deceased using the knife after disarming him. The defence, hence advanced on the basis that; his responsibility had diminished due to post-traumatic stress disorder, provocation as well as self defence6. The trial was on July 1997 at St Albans Crown Court before a jury and Blofeld J. The recent decision on the provocation of the House of Lords at that time was Morhall [1996] AC 90. On 29th July a majority convicted the appellant of murder thus sentencing him to life imprisonment. Permission to appeal to the court was also denied by the single judge and an application for a time extension to renew application to full court was also refused. Differences between the operation of judicial precedent and traditional judicial approach Judicial precedent doctrine is usually based on stare decisis. This refers to the standing by of the previous decisions. In judicial precedent, once a point is decided in one particular case, the law has to be applied in all the cases in a future that has similar material facts. Judges may, however, avoid a previous precedent through overruling, distinguishing or Reversing. In the case of James and Karimi, the decision of the Privy Council had effectively overruled the decision of the House of Lords7. The Privy Council’s Judicial Board consisted of nine of the ordinary twelve Lords of appeal. Decision by the Privy Council would have taken precedence over the previous decisions of the House of Lords if R v Holley had definitively clarified the English law in relation to provocation. This would happen if it departed by a majority six to three based on the decision made earlier by the House of Lords that is in R v Smith (Morgan). Exceptional circumstances of this case would lead to the precedence8. Overruling occurs when a court that is higher in the hierarchy tends to depart from a decision previously made in a court lower I the hierarchy. The previous decision, therefore, becomes no longer binding, e.g. R v R [1991] 3 WLR 767. Overruling is also applicable under similar circumstances in the courts of the same level. Reversing occurs when a higher court tends to depart from a lower court’s decision, but on appeal e.g. Gillick v West Norfolk [1986] AC 112. Distinguishing applies when the facts of a case are deemed different making the previous case no longer binding. Judges, neither create nor change laws. They only discover then declare what the law is and has been. As a result, case law operates retrospectively because they always exist as declared9. Murder Murder is when a person alleged to be of sound mind and at the age of discretion kills unlawfully. When a defendant kills another person unlawfully with the Intention to kill or seriously harm their body, the defendant is entitled to a mandatory life sentence. If a person said to be of sound mind and is at the defined age of discretion committing murder, they must be legally responsible for the actions10. This is if the defendant is not found to be under diminished responsibility or is not insane. England’s age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. In this case, Karimi was therefore found to be responsible for the death of Mr Kavadi leading the rule of life imprisonment. Manslaughter on the other hand is defined by the English law as an offence less serious as compared to murder. When a defendant is convicted of manslaughter like in James case, the sentence is usually at the judge’s discretion. Manslaughter could either be voluntary or involuntary. Provocation Where provocation involves words like insults about a certain trait of the accused a jury may consider the particular trait in determining the gravity of provocation in that particular case. However, the court may not consider particular traits of a defendant, except for age and gender in assessing self-control standards expected of a man said to be reasonable. In the case of R v James and R v Karimi, a distinction between the self-control standards and gravity of provocation was drawn. The ruling is given after the gravity of provocation has been determined. In this case, the courts dismissed the appeals. The two cases help determine whether the provocation test as a way of defence was the one laid in the House of Lords which was in R v Morgan Smith or the decision of the Privy council11. The court decided under unusual circumstances to prefer the Privy Council decision to the earlier House of Lords decision. Statutes are usually a written communication that is between a parliament and legislative audience. Traditional canons are systematically being replaced by a consistent and unified paradigm with features including liberalization, statutory purpose as well as explicit provisions. Traditional canons were less adequate than the new paradigm as sources of reasons for the decision and meaning.in the traditional approach, judicial practice was considered by conducting surveys. The results would then be compared using earlier findings12. Statute law is often related to case law. The case law originates from decisions made by appellate courts together with constitutional law that is based on a particular country’s written constitution. Like in the case of James and Karimi, the court of appeal is divided into Civil division and Criminal division. R v James and R v Karimi fell under criminal division where it deals with appeals against sentence or conviction directed by the crown court13. Their cases were determined by the crown court that has both first instance jurisdiction and appellate. It deals with criminal cases similar to the case of James and Karimi where cases were heard by circuit judges14. In conclusion, this case involves murder and manslaughter whose legal responsibilities upon the defendants are equally different. Several considerations like, age, sanity, provocation and diminishing responsibilities are put into account before the final judgement. Judicial precedent is, however avoidable through several ways like in James’ case where it was avoided by way of overruling. In both cases, the court of appeal dismisses their appeals following legal procedures. Bibliographies BAILII, ‘England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions’ (25 January 2006) < http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/14.html> accessed 20 April 2015 C Wolfe, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law (Littlefield Adams Quality Papaerbacks 1994) J Loveless, Complete Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford University Press 2012) JA Holland and SW Julian, Learning Legal Rules (Oxford University Press 2013) R v James & Karimi [2006] 2 WLR 887 S Gary and K David, The English Legal System: 2014-2015 (Routledge 2014) Read More