Criminal Law (Advise Katarina, Paula, and Jenny as to their potential liability for homicide) - Essay Example

? Criminal Law No: Advise Katarina, Paula, and Jenny as to their potential liability for homicide.Introduction The aims of criminal law do not culminate to punish people for their evil thoughts. An accused should be responsible for his misconduct / misdeeds, prohibited by the criminal law before liability may come on the surface. The fixation of liability will solely depend on the alleged accuser’s state of mind at the time of committing crime. Homicide As per the legal terminology, homicide comprises two sorts of major offences, one is murder and the other is manslaughter. It can further be divided into two different categories a) voluntary manslaughter and b) involuntary manslaughter (Ashworth 2006). There are three ways of commissioning homicide a) killing with motive where one may have the chance of partial defence b) gross negligent conduct causing death and c) dangerous harm that culminates to death (Ashworth 2006). In scenario “a” referred to as above, is a "voluntary manslaughter". The remaining attempts fall within the ambit of “involuntary manslaughter”. Mens Rea The intention of crime falls within the definition of Mens rea that deals with the state of mind of a defendant at the time of committing a crime to determine criminal liability. In order to fix the responsibility of crimes of a defendant, mens rea at the time of committing crimes is essential under the criminal act. In other words, motives refer to the reason that compelled the defendant to commit criminal act. Take the examples of Fred and Wilma whose matrimonial relationship last for about twenty years. Later on, Fred began to suspect that his wife was having sexual affairs with Barney, which made him enraged. He bought gun and shot her to death. The case under reference indicates criminal act of Wilma and the intent of Fred to kill her. The motive was very clear (Ormerod 2011). It is to be noted that only motive is not enough to attack a criminal. Other supportive evidences are also required to establish a case against the defendant. Contrary to that, public prosecutor proves that the motive of the defendant was to kill. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove criminal liability. If public prosecutor proves the motive and not the mens rea, there is a strong chance that the defendant must be acquitted by the competent court of law, no matter how bad is the intention. Further if a public prosecutor proves the mens rea with the actus reus, the defendant will not escape from conviction, no matter how noble his motive is (Ormerod 2011). In this respect you may please refer to the cases of Hyam vs DPP (1975), R v Ried (1992), State v. Asher (Ark. 1888). Actus Reus The other way round, actus reus in accordance with the broader definition of criminal law comprises all ingredients of a crime other than the state of mind of a criminal. In a nutshell, actus reus may have the following components a) conduct b) outcome c) state of affairs and d) omission (Loveless 2012). Here we may refer to the cases of R v Miller (1982), R v Adams [1957], Devlin J, Armstrong, R v [1989] Owen J and Cox, R v (1992) Winchester Crown Court, Ognall J. Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea A thorough study of Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (2010) of Simester and R. Sullivan revealed that according to general rule, the actus reus and mens rea of a crime may have coincidence in terms of behavioural and circumstantial elements with regard to actus reus, which occur at the same time thus satisfying the requirements of mens rea (Simester et al 2010). Potential Liability Holder We have analyzed the whole situation on the mentioned parameters of homicide, which makes Katarina, responsible for the murder of Victor. Her motive for murdering her married boyfriend speaks of “jealous personality syndrome”. Because said boyfriend refused to spend the night with her since he selected another girlfriend Audrey for having a sexual pleasure in the night. Katrina felt insulted and made up her mind to take revenge by cutting the strings of Victor’s parachute. Had she not cut the strings of parachute, his life would have not been in the death trap. As far as Jenny is concerned, she is indirectly involved in the murder of Victor. The life of Victor could have been saved if Jenny had not unplugged the life saving equipments. Her move was unintentional. The rest was not directly involved in the murder of Victor. The fault of Paula is that she did not notice the cut off strings of Victor’s parachute before jumping that caused his death. The move of Paula was not intentional. Therefore, the potential liability for homicide rests with Katrina (Loveless 2012). To what extent, if at all, have the reforms to voluntary manslaughter implemented by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 improved the law?  Brief The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 brought revolutionary changes in the legal system of United Kingdom. The salient provisions of said act are a) to prevent criminals from cashing their criminal publications b) to abolish sedition, defamation and obscene libel c) to re-enact Criminal Evidence (witness anonymity) Act 2008 to ensure defendant's right to a fair trial d) to criminalize the possession of pornographic images of a person under the age of 18 e) to hold someone as slave for forced labour f) to uproot the bureau of Coroner of the Queen’s Household (Mackay 2010). Further, it also put a ban on keeping pornographic pictures under the age of 18 showing sexual activities in the presence of those who are under the age of 18. The most controversial part of the bill is secretive investigation. The act in question empowers Lord Chief Justice to set aside the private inquests and the judge of his own choice (Mackay 2010). The under reference Act 2009 amended the 1957 Homicide Act by replacing the “provocation” with “loss of control”. In order to meet the mentioned criterion a) lose self-control due to triggering event b) event must be qualifying c) loss of self-control must have an objectivity (Mackay 2010). For example a sane person might lose self-control under the circumstances. An example of relevant decision of the competent jurisdiction is Parker and Evans [2012]. Lacking The main reason of introducing the cited act were a) The Shipman Inquiry that conducted in the year 2003 and b) the Fundamental Review of Death Certification and c) Investigation in the similar year pinpointed a number of issues and inconsistencies with regard to the services provided to the bereaved families plus the process of death certification. It was felt that due to lack of leadership and the required training of coroners in the field of medicine were the main hurdles in providing good quality medical services to bereaved families in particular and the masses in general that had to be addressed. The role of Dr. Shipman in identifying numerous lacking that caused failure of system was to identify and separate the criminal activities over a period of many years that deserves praise (Wilson 2011). Changes The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 played key role with regard to changes that relate to altering the structure of coronial system along with the transparent process of appointment for coroners. Rigid boundaries once upon a time placed between coroners areas had been liberalized thus extending the service in a modern and flexible way. This act has further provided an opportunity to appoint Chief Coroner who ensures quality service in accordance with national standards. The Chief Coroner is also responsible to monitor the development charter that is specifically devised for the bereaved families strictly in light with the parameters set for them (Wilson 2011). Bibliography Armstrong, R v [1989] Owen J Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cox, R v (1992) Winchester Crown Court, Ognall J Hyam vs DPP [1975] AC 55. Loveless, J. (2012). Complete criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackay, R. D. (2010). The Coroners and Justice Act 2009: partial defences to murder (2). The new diminished responsibility plea. Criminal Law Review, 4, 290-302. Parker, Evans [2012] EWCA Crim 2 Ormerod, D. (2011). Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law. 13th Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. R v Adams [1957] Crim LR 365 R v Miller [1982] UKHL 6  R v Ried (1992) 3 ALL ER 673 Simester, A. P., Sullivan, G. R., Spencer, J. R. and Virgo, G. (2010). Simester and Sullivan's Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine. (4 ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing. State v. Asher, 8 S.W. 177 (Ark. 1888) Wilson, M. (2011). An Overview of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. [Online]. Available at: Accessed on 10 January 2013. Read More