Criminal Law - Homicide - Assignment Example

? Criminal Law – Homicide Criminal Law – Homicide When a human being is killed by another human being, the act is known as a homicide. The two main types of homicides are murder and manslaughter with the difference being that manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder (Slapper & Kelly 1999). The English legal system is a system of law that is practiced in England. This kind of system is practiced in most of the commonwealth countries. The English legal system recognizes homicides and continues to explain that for a case to be rated as a homicide, there must be a person who is dead and the death of that person came as a result of an act by another person (Jason 1997, p. 23). With reference to the above given question, this paper will determine the accuracy and the type of homicide that was involved in the two cases given. In addition to that, this paper will identify the relevant points that will be able to prove that the offences that were committed were committed by the said parties. This paper will also cite correctly the legal authorities and scholarly opinions which support or refute those arguments. In the case study given above, Peter committed the act of hiding behind the fence in Quinn’s field with the intention of startling the horses and riders but instead, the act led to the death of Quinn who fell from a horse which was startled by Peter. At the same time, Derek and Cedric who were hunting together with Quinn, picked up Peter, carried him out of the field and threw him into a lake. As a result, there were two murders, that is, that of Quinn who was killed unintentionally by Peter and that of Peter who was killed intentionally by Cedric and Derek. In the first case where Quinn was killed by Peter, that kind of murder is known as involuntary manslaughter according to the English legal system. This kind of murder is where one commits an act and in the process killing another human being but not with the intent (Chadwick 2011, p. 52). In our case study, Peter had the intention of just startling the horses and riders who were hunting a fox and as a result of his actions, Quinn fell off his horse and died. Though Quinn was haemophiliac and dies due to that, the act by Peter which led to him falling from his horse was the act that caused his death. This act can also be put in the category of manslaughter by gross negligence. This is where one ignores all the risks involved in the act and goes ahead to commit it which later leads to the death of another human being. In this case, Peter had foreseen that there was a possibility of a rider falling from a horse as he startled it but ignored the fact and went ahead to commit the act which in turn led to the death of Quinn. There are four stages of gross negligence known as Adomako test that was presented by the House of Lords in the United Kingdom (Slapper & Kelly 2011). The Adomako test involves stages which are; a duty of care of existence to the deceased. This is a stage which arises when; a person commits an act without being reasonable or being able to foresee the results of his / her actions because some the acts may lead to death. In this case study Peter was not reasonable when he committed the act of startling the horses knowing very well that this act may cause injury or harm to another person but instead caused death to Quinn. If Peter had the duty of care to the other human beings, he would have foreseen the results of his actions and would have been able to foretell what would have happened if he continues with his intentions. In this case, Peter foresaw the results of his action and was not reasonable enough to know that his actions can cause injury or even murder to a fellow human being. Therefore, there was a breach of the duty of care by Peter towards Quinn. A breach of the duty of care is where a person may not be able to act as a reasonable person would have in their possession (Wheeler 2002, p. 42). In this case, Peter did not act as a reasonable person would have acted in his position and thereby caused the death of Quinn. In such a case in the English legal system, the jury will look at the duty of care by Peter who was supposed to have foreseen the results of his action and thereby acted like a reasonable person would have. Then the jury will look at the breach of the duty of care by a person to another human being. In this case, Peter foresaw the results of his actions but still went ahead and committed the action which ended up with the death of Quinn. The jury will then look at the grossness of the breach of the care of duty. In this case, the jury will look at the grossness of the breach of the duty of care where Peter did not consider that his action will cause injury or even death to the horse riders and went ahead with the action and startled the horses which led to the subsequent fall of Quinn from the horse (Zander 2007, p. 38). Quinn who was haemophiliac died because of the fall from the horse. If Peter had acted like a reasonable person would have, he would have not committed the act knowing very well that the act may cause harm / injury or even death to another human being in this case, Quinn. The jury will then look at the facts presented and will be able to find the cause of the action. In this case, Peter who was an anti-hunt demonstrator wanted to startle to prevent the hunters from hunting in the fields. In his effort to stop them, he decided to hide behind the fence with the intention startling the horses and the riders. He had foreseen the possibility of causing injury to the horse riders but ignored this possibility and went on to startle the horse. This action in turn caused Quinn to fall off the back of a horse and due to his haemophiliac condition died. If the jury in this case considers all the facts about the case, then Peter will be found guilty of manslaughter in which he had unintentionally caused the death of Quinn. This occurred when Quinn fell from the horseback and died due to his haemophiliac condition. If Peter had taken into consideration that his act will cause harm or injury to the horse riders then he would have considered not committing the action which in turn caused the death of Quinn though it was unintentional. Peter would have then been sentenced to four years imprisonment because he grossly neglected his duty of care to the other human being who in this case is Quinn who died as a result of his action towards him. In another defence of Peter, he would be safe he would prove to the court that Quinn did not die because of the fall from the horse; instead, he did due to his haemophiliac condition (Slapper & Kelly 1999). In this case, if Peter would be able to prove that Quinn did not die because of the fall from the horse but died because of his medical condition would have a very big impact on this case. This is because by him doing so, there would no case for him to answer because he did not commit manslaughter. According to this fact, maybe when Peter startled the horse and Quinn fell from its back, the cause of his death was not the impact of hitting the ground but instead it was his medical condition. At the same time, Peter would have a case to answer because due to his actions of startling the horse, Quinn fell from horseback and as a result died of his medical condition. This means that if Peter did not startle the horse, then Quinn would not have died from the medical condition he was suffering from. According to the reasonable man test, any reasonable person would have foreseen the results of their actions and would not have committed that action but instead, Peter foresaw the results but still went ahead and committed the action which in turn led to the death of Quinn by falling from horseback. In the other case to consider, Derek and Cedric picked up Peter and carried him out of the field and threw him into a lake. This case against Derek and Cedric can be classified as voluntary manslaughter (Walker & Walker 1998). Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of another human being intentional (Gillespie 2009, p. 15). In this case, Derek and Cedric killed Peter by throwing him into a lake because he had killed their friend Quinn. Derek and Cedric can say they were provoked by Peter when he killed Quinn which in turn led them to throw him into a lake. Provocation is a defence law which provided that when a person if provoked he /she can at time cause actions that will in turn lead to the death of other human beings. In this case, Peter provoked Derek and Cedric when he chose to startle the horses which in turn caused the death of Quinn. Quinn was haemophiliac but his death came as a result of Peter who startled the horses which led to Quinn falling from horseback and dying. Derek and Cedric must be able to prove that they were provoked into doing the action by Peter who had killed their friends. The acts that fall under provocation according to the English legal system include; being insulted or assaulted by another person. In addition to that witnessing an attack on a relative can also be an act of provocation according to the English legal system. In this case, Derek and Cedric witnessed Peter causing harm and injury to Quinn who died due to this. They were provoked to throwing him into a lake outside the field. For the jury to know that the person (s) was provoked they must be able to have enough evidence that may propose that he / she was provoked leading to the action. In this case, the evidence that would be presented is the fact that Peter had caused the death of Quinn. Peter startled the horses and riders in the field which in turn led to the falling from horseback of Quinn who died though he was haemophiliac. The question the jury will ask themselves is, were the defendants provoked into doing the action (Martin 2010, p. 6)? In this case, yes they were provoked into doing the action because they had witnessed Peter committing an action that ended with the death of Quinn. If Peter had foreseen the results of his action then he would not have committed the action which led to the death of Quinn and in turn provoked Derek and Cedric to throw him into a lake outside the field. If Derek and Cedric would have acted as a reasonable person in their capacity would have, they would have not committed the act of throwing Peter into a lake but instead would have taken the legal action against him in a court of law. But instead, Derek and Cedric caused an action that led to the death of Peter by them throwing him into a lake. Though Derek and Cedric were provoked by the action of Peter which led to the death of Quinn, they would have acted like a reasonable person would have in their capacity (Gillespie 2007, p. 15). If the jury is certain that Derek and Cedric were provoked into the action then they would conduct the reasonable man test where they will test and see if a reasonable man would have committed the act that the defendants had committed. In this case the jury would have conducted a reasonable man test by seeing whether any reasonable person would have committed the act that Derek and Cedric committed by throwing Peter into a lake. Though Peter had committed an act that had led to the death of their friend Quinn, a reasonable man would not have committed the act that the defendants committed by throwing Peter into a lake. A reasonable person would not have committed the act which Derek and Cedric committed by throwing Peter into a lake even though he had committed an action that caused the death of their friend. A reasonable person would have caught Peter and taken legal action against him because by throwing him into a lake, this would only create more trouble with the legal system and may lead to imprisonment for the action. If Derek and Cedric would have acted as a responsible person would have acted in the capacity, they would have caught Peter and maybe taken him to the police for him to face the full wrath of the law. Instead, they chose to throw him into a lake instead of following the correct way according to the law which is taking him to the police for him to face the law. They are thereby being charged in the court of law with voluntary manslaughter. Their action of throwing Peter into a lake caused harm / injury to Peter who in turn died due to their action of throwing him into a lake to drown. According to the English law, the defence of provocation can reduce the sentence of a manslaughter case which would otherwise be murder. By pleading provocation by the defendant (s), it means that he / she must be able to prove how he / she was provoked and the reasonable man test must be taken to see how a reasonable person would react in a situation like this. In this case, if Derek and Cedric would be able to prove to the jury that Peter had provoked them by committing an act that led to the death of Quinn, then they would have to take the reasonable man test which would have tested how a reasonable person would have reacted with regard to the matter that Peter had committed an act that had led to the death of Quinn. Peter startled the horses and in turn caused Quinn to fall from horseback and die. If Derek and Cedric would not be able to prove the fact about provocation to the jury, this would mean that they would have to be charged in the court of law for murder. In this case, it would be considered that they had an intention of committing an act that would cause harm to Peter and most probably would get life imprisonment for the action. It would be said that any reasonable person would not have committed the act as Derek and Cedric had committed and instead would have sought another way to solve the problem where Peter had committed an act that in turn led to the death of their friend Quinn. The act that was committed by Derek and Cedric was voluntary and if it is not proven that they were provoked by Peter to commit the act then it will mean that they intended to commit the act. According to the English law, this kind of act is called murder. Murder is the voluntary act of causing harm / injury to another human being and in turn killing them. According to this law, the sentence for this kind of act is life imprisonment unless one is able to prove a reason which is either, he / she was provoked in doing the act or otherwise. In this case, if Derek and Cedric will not be able to prove that they were provoked by the act by Peter which led to the death of Quinn, they would then be charged with murder which has a sentence of life imprisonment. In conclusion, the English legal system has provisions for one to be able to prove his / her case in that, if a murder is committed either, intended or unintended, then one would get the chance to prove in a court of law the reason as to why they committed the said case. In addition to that we see that, according to the English legal system, there is voluntary manslaughter which is committing manslaughter voluntarily and there is involuntary manslaughter which is committing of murder without the intention to do so (Slapper & Kelly 2011). References Chadwick, A 2011, The English Legal System, John Wiley and Sons, London. Gillespie, A 2007, The English legal system, Oxford University Press, London. Gillespie, A 2009, The English legal system, Oxford University Press, London. Jason, L 1997, The framework of the English legal system, Taylor & Francis, London. Martin, J 2006, The English Legal System, John Wiley and Sons, London. Martin, J 2010, The English Legal System, John Wiley and Sons, London. Slapper, G & Kelly, D 1999, The English Legal System, Taylor & Francis, London. Slapper, G & Kelly, D 2011, Sourcebook on the English legal system, Oxford University Press, London. Slapper, G & Kelly, D 2011, The English Legal System, Taylor & Francis, London. Slapper, G & Kelly, D 2011, The English Legal System: 2011-2012, Oxford University Press, London. Walker, R & Walker, G 1998, The English legal system, John Wiley and Sons, London. Wheeler, J 2002, The English legal system, Taylor & Francis, London. Zander, M 2007, Cases and Materials on the English Legal System, Cengage learning, Oklahoma. Read More