(A) Fern and Joe are out in the local town, visiting the shops. Fern repeatedly runs into the road and is in danger of being hit by vehicles. Joe warns her of the danger and repeatedly tells her not to do this. Finally, Joe loses his temper and hits* Fern…
In case A we have to deal with an offence. The offence is about Joe, Fern's father, who loses his temper over Fern not listening about the danger of being hit by the vehicles and pushes Fern. She hurts herself and dies.
An offence, according to the law regulations is a "violation of the penal law" where penal law or criminal law is "the body of laws that are enforced by the State in its own name and impose penalties for their violation." Usually an offence can be either a traffic violation which would represent a misdemeanor or a capital murder which would represent a fellow. However, an offence is different from a crime in the fact that there's no typical victim, by "the action remains prohibited by statute."
Nevertheless, in case A we are dealing with an offence called involuntary manslaughter. The reason is because in UK this is called "gross negligence" manslaughter because the intention was not to kill the victim; the result of the Fern's death, even thought was caused by being used and hurting her head, it is a case of death that resulted from "recklessness or criminal negligence."
In the UK the liability for manslaughter due to recklessness is also defined as "wanton blinded ness" in which the culpable person refuses t be aware of the dangers of a particular situation. This applies to the Fern's case in which her father is unaware that by pushing her she could her herself which she did to the point of death. However, because there is no intent to kill the resulting death may not be considered a murder. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the culpable is free of the criminal negligence guilt in which he was aware of the potential dangers of his actions and still he decided to pursue them. Because of this the charge for Fern's father actions, although unintentionally may charge him with second degree murder.
There is a little confusion that results from the first case. Specifically, "Manslaughter is any culpable homicide which is not murder or infanticide." On the other hand, Joe may have been charged with second degree murder, which is different from first degree murder in the sense that:
"it was not planned or deliberate;
it was not contracted;
it was not committed against an identified peace officer;
while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking;
while committing criminal harassment,;
Committed during terrorist activity, while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, and while committing intimidation. "
Nevertheless, being considered second degree murder the penalty that usually applied to such cases is as follows: usually there is mandatory life imprisonment for 10 to 25 years without the possibility of parol ...
Cite this document
(“Criminal law: liability for manslaughter Case Study”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/285843-criminal-law-liability-for-manslaughter
(Criminal Law: Liability for Manslaughter Case Study)
“Criminal Law: Liability for Manslaughter Case Study”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/285843-criminal-law-liability-for-manslaughter.
She packs her bags and goes. Not knowing what to do, Alan picks up a hunting rifle and goes in search of Clive. He looks through the pub window and sees both Betty and Clive together. Whilst taking aim at Clive with the rifle, Dennis, an old friend from the pub, staggers over Alan and gives him a hard slap on the back.
'(Rahee,(1866)Unrep Cr C6)' The fact that the death of a human being is caused is not enough. Actus reus and Mens Rea both should be proved by the prosecution. "The general basis for imposing liability in criminal law is that the defendant must be proved to have committed a guilty act whilst having had a guilty state of mind.
Borris invoked defence of provocation but it is only defence of murder.
A person will be liable for murder if he unlawfully killing a reasonable person who is in being under the Queen's Peace with intention to kill [Moloney1, Cunningham 2, Vickers 3] or intention to cause grievous bodily harm [DPP v Smith 4], [Saunders5.
This answer first deals with Alan, then Ed & Doctor Fiona. It will finally envisage Alan's criminal liability for Clive & Betty's death. In order to establish liability it need to discuss actus reus, mens rea and defences.
Alan may be charged under murder or manslaughter.
Gabrielle and her personal trainer, Carl may be liable for conspiracy. At common law the offence of conspiracy was committed where two of more persons agreed 'to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means' [Mulcahy 1]. The offence of statutory conspiracy is defined in s 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1981.
(Cartwright, 1999, p. 84)
John according to the s1 Theft Act 1968 is found guilty of theft as he is depriving others from their property and particularly in the case where he steal 'roses' from one of his neighbours he is purely acting dishonestly depriving the roses from his real property owner.
(b) Richard should plead the "necessity" defence as a general defence to almost all criminal charges however case law has often shown that the court will decide whether the defendant is worthy of such an exclusion on a case by case basis. The case for this scenario is R v.
The mens rea which will suffice is the intention or subjective recklessness. Intention can be categorized into direct intent or oblique intent. Direct intent will be present if it is found that the act caused was the purpose of the actor. Oblique intent on the other hand is where the jury may find the result intended even if it was no the actor's purpose, this is found if the jury finds that i) the result is virtually certain consequence of his act; and ii) he knows that it is a virtually certain consequence (R v.
In order to answer this question it is necessary to discuss Kirby J's view with reference to the scope of liability under principles of common purpose and the group or collective dimension of criminal activity have to the formulation of principles of liability.
in the form of some verbal or written confession to the fact, then the possibility of manslaughter arises.
There is also the legal duty to act because of an actual or implied contract. For example, in R. v. Pitwood (1902) a defendant was convicted of manslaughter after he failed to close a level crossing gate with the result of a hay cart and a train colliding.
4 Pages(1000 words)Case Study
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Case Study on topic Criminal law: liability for manslaughter for FREE!