Other
D1 - Evaluate the law on murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter
- Course
- Institution
D1 - Evaluate the law on murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
viliamreis3
Reviews received
Content preview
(Task 5) D1 - Evaluate the law on murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughterMurder Evaluation
Murder has existed as long as history has been recorded in England and Wales the current definition of murder
derives from Cokes definition from the 17th century. Although it can be argued that the law on murder operates
perfectly well, although various criticisms could be directed towards the law on murder. The 2006 ‘Murder,
Manslaughter and Infanticide’ report by Law Commission stated in their that the ‘’law governing homicide in England
and Wales is a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations. Some of its rules have remained unaltered since the
seventeenth century, even though it has long been acknowledged that they are in dire need of reform. Other rules
are of uncertain content, often because they have been constantly changed to the point that they can no longer be
stated with any certainty or clarity... certain piecemeal reforms effected by Parliament, although valuable at the
time, are now beginning to show their age or have been overtaken by other legal changes and, yet, have been left
unreformed... This state of affairs should not continue....’’
intention is an idea that is associated with all specific intention offenses however its significance needs larger clarity.
in the case of 'Moloney 1985'. Lord Bridge, stated that: When directing a jury on the mental element necessary in a
crime of specific intent, the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent and leave it
to the jury’s good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent....''
An attempt to classify the significance of intention was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (CJA 1967). S8 of CJA
1967 states that ''A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,- S8 (a) shall not be
bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and
probable consequence of those actions; but. S8 (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by
reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances...''
Advantage and disadvantage – malice aforethought express and/ or implied malice
Serious issue of the law on murder is that of 'intention to kill or intention to cause GBH'' this can be found on
account of R v Vickers 1957' in which the litigant broke into the basement of a store with the purpose to take cash.
While in the basement, Vickers experienced a lady who lived over the store, Miss Duckett. Vickers attacked Duckett,
and she died of wounds encountered in the attack. Vickers was indicted for capital homicide and condemned to
death. Vickers appalled. The primary issues with the law on murder and 'intention to kill or intention to cause GBH'
is that individuals who expect to kill are seen as liable as individuals who didn't mean to predict harm of their
actions. Lord Goddard stated that murder is, obviously, killing with malice aforethought, yet malice aforethought are
words of art saying malice aforethought is uncertain and is deceiving on the grounds that it doesn't need to be
intention for homicide; mens rea can ascend from heat of the moment.
Likewise, Implied malice has been under investigation by numerous law writers and judges because of it broadening
definition for homicide excessively far it turned out to be excessively wide for interpretation, on account of 'R v
Cunningham 1982' Lord Davies expressed that mens rea for homicide should be restricted to expectation as it were.
The proposed changes in the 2006 'Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide' report by Law Commission illustrated that
if Defendant expects serious harm and has foreseen death, it very well may be outcome of actions. In the event that
the standard was taken on board it would guarantee Defendant assumes full liability for results of direct and can't
figure they will be 'let off' with executing another 'reasonable creature'
Advantage - foresight of consequences
A clarification of the impact of foresight of consequences has been endeavoured by and large however stays a zone
of disarray. This is seen in the case of ‘Moloney 1985’ in which it was administered foresight of consequences was
not in any means intention, it was just proof from which a jury could conclude intention.
In the case of ‘Woolin 1998’ - House of Lords held that a jury could discover intention in foresight of consequences.
This choice by house of lords has made vulnerability and uncertainty. Also, in the case of ‘Matthews and Alleyne
2003’ - Court of Appeal said that there was next to no contrast between a standard of proof and one of substantive
1|Page
, (Task 5) D1 - Evaluate the law on murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter
law. So, it is indistinct whether there is a substantive rule of standard of criminal law that foresight is somehow
intention or if there is just a standard of proof that intention can be found from foresight of consequences.
Moreover, it stays hazy whether the distinction of foresight of consequences and intention is of significance.
Disadvantage - Serious harm rule
Discussion additionally encompasses the way that an individual who means to cause serious bodily harm and indeed
causes the victims passing is blameworthy of homicide. Some argue that this is uncalled for as there is no distinction
between situations where somebody plans to cause serious harm and where somebody means to kill.
just special case is on account of 'Hancock and Shankland 1986' in which defendants were miners protesting. While
trying to keep others from going to work they pushed a solid square from a scaffold onto the street beneath to
impede an entrance course. The victim in question, a cabbie, was driving a miner to the mine when the rock hit his
vehicle. house of Lords subbed the conviction for one of manslaughter and acknowledged the defendant’s argument
that their goal was to block the street as it were. Law Commission, in the 2006 report Murder, Manslaughter and
Infanticide, expressed the offense of homicide is excessively wide. The report featured that when the Homicide Act
1957 was passed it was planned that a killing would possibly add up to murder if the defendant acknowledged death
was a potential result of their actions.
disadvantage - judicial criticism
It has been contended that the mens rea for homicide ought to be limited to an intention to kill. In spite of remarks,
for example, this, the judiciary have declined to make such a point of reference through case law. Many feel it is an
issue that Parliament should address and subsequently it is beyond legal forces of the judiciary to roll out such an
improvement.
Disadvantage - Mandatory life sentence
Additionally, issue with murder is that of 'mandatory life sentence' which was laid by Murder (Abolition of the Death
Penalty) Act 1965. The fundamental purpose behind life is that murder supposedly is most noticeably terrible
wrongdoing to be submitted so merits most elevated sentence allowed by law. The issue with this is that if
Defendant is more than 18, judge forces 'life sentence' whenever defendant is guilty. Subsequent to forcing they
settle on tariff (minimum number of years to serve before discharge considered) models incorporate heartless
chronic executioners for example Sutcliffe and mercy killing executing for example Francis Inglis all sentenced for
homicide so it does not make any difference what seriousness of the crime is. They all get a similar sentence.
Analysis of this is that individuals think its crooked, for what reason should someone who was engaged with wilful
extermination be given a similar sentence as somebody who killed in light of the fact that they needed. The
recommended change by the Law Commission in their 2006 report on 'Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide'
proposed that Parliament ought to abolish compulsory life sentence and make it optional. Judge ought to force
sentence depending upon reality of wrongdoing and this would permit singular conditions to be considered, for
example, mercy killing.
Also, It can be argued that there are different levels of blameworthiness even within the crime of murder. An
example if the murder of soldier Lee Rigby, Michael Adebolaj who received a whole life tariff, most would argue that
this is totally justifiable. However, a life sentence was also imposed upon Francis Inglis who was guilty of murdering
her severely disabled son, although the judge gave her lowest tariff possible, she still received a life sentence of a
minimum of nine years. This was aggravated by the CJA 2003 imposing minimum sentences.
The Law Commissions proposals for reform in 2006 go into some detail to solve the serious harm rule and the
problems with mandatory sentencing. Their suggestions include different levels of murder, first degree murder;
Killing with intention to kill, including cases of oblique intention. Killing with intention to cause serious injury with the
knowledge and awareness that there is serious risk of death, this would be a mandatory life sentence. Second
2|Page
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller viliamreis3. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $12.10. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
77333 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now