Anatomy of Injustice - Essay Example

Criminal Law affiliation Introduction Facts in Issue What crime was committed (murder or manslaughter) 2.Whether she had the mens rea to commit the offence 3. If premeditation amounts to an offence 4. What defences Betsy has in law Analysis 1. With reference to the facts of the case, the crime that was committed was that of murder. Murder is committed when an individual of sound mind unlawfully kills a reasonable creature in being with the intention to cause grievous harm or kill. Intent means intention to kill where someone had foresight before the crime. Prosecutor must establish causation where they show a link between the act and the death. This act is the main cause for the death. Courts look at whether there was malice aforethought or premeditation The crime that Betsy can be accused of is murder due to her actus reus of killing her husband. However, the prosecution can decide whether they can substitute the offense with that of manslaughter due to lack of meditation but this depends with facts of the case. In this case, she claimed that she had lost control and therefore reacted by shooting him. The court can reduce liability by charging her with manslaughter due to loss of self-control in that she lacked the malice aforethought. 2. According to Schabas1 mens rea in murder is malice aforethought. Malice aforethought can mislead a court of law as it proves ill will or a defendant pre- planning to commit a crime. It means intention to kill. It covers direct intent and oblique intent. In R v, Cunningham2 the defendant attacked the victim in a pub where he hit him repeatedly using a chair that led to his death. The court held that intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient to cause mens rea for a case of murder. Lord Hallsham stated that malice aforethought is not limited to intention to kill. In R v Woollin3 Lord Bridge stated that the defendant to have qualified mens rea for murder there must be more than foresight to cause death and therefore intention must be clearly established. From the facts of the case, the prosecution must proof whether Betsy had the mens rea required to ascertain a murder case or cause bodily harm. Betsy had earlier purchased a gun that would seem before a court of law as ill will against her husband. However, this gun was not used until she was provoked therefore; she lacks the intent required by a court of law to ascertain murder. Malice aforethought involves pre-planning to cause grievous bodily harm. The prosecution on the other hand can use this act of buying a gun as intention to commit a crime, but they must proof beyond reasonable doubt that she had the mens rea. 3. A defendant is guilty of first-degree murder if the prosecution proves they acted wilfully or deliberately. Premeditation is evaluated by the courts in terms of whether the defendant knew and weighed considerations for his actions knowing of its consequences and decided to commit murder. The defendant is said to have premeditated if they had the intention to kill before the act of murder occurs. Time spent on premeditation vary from person to person. Decision to kill that is made impulsively or rashly does not amount to premeditation4. Betsy actions at the time of committing the murder were rushed and impulsive due to loss of control for being provoked and therefore she lacks premeditation test. However, the prosecutor may argue that due to abuse, she underwent through her husband and her purchasing a gun can amount to premeditated murder. Since she came alone to their marital house and left her children with her mother. The prosecution can argue that she had taken time to plan the act of murder and should be charged with first-degree murder. 4. Defences for murder are used to reduce liability in establishing that the defendant did not have the intention to kill nut due to prevailing circumstance they were forced to act in the way they did. For a defence for murder to qualify in supporting the defendant, the court uses the reasonable test to check whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have acted in the same manner, the defendant acted in similar circumstance. Concerning the facts, Betsy can use the defence of provocation that is also referred to as loss of control. She might use the defence for provocation. Provocation is a defence only available in murder cases. Where it is used when the defendant states they were suffered sudden loss of control due to things that were said or said directly to them. This is a special defence and reduces liability of defendant to manslaughter .Courts of law allow this defence since the defendant is deemed to not have been in control of their mind. In addition, courts look at whether a reasonable man would act in the same as the defendant acted in the same situation. David5 in his book notes that to prove loss of self-control the defendant must establish that things said or done directly to them would provoke such loss of control. Loss of self-control must be sudden and temporary where in that moment of time they were not the master of their own mind. In cases where revenge is the motivating factor such defence cannot apply .Courts must analyse the delay between the provocation and commission of the crime .Also the law looks at whether the defendant used the expected amount of self-control of a reasonable person The Homicide Act 1957 lays out a test that is considered in a charge of murder of showing provocation by things done directly to them that made them loose self-control. This test looks at the reasonable test where if a reasonable person would have acted the same in similar circumstances. According to the facts of the case, Betsy can use this defence to argue that she was provoked by her husband and in the end lost her self-control. When her husband found out her kids were at her mother’s place he insulted her calling her a bad mother, stupid, and a worthless person no one would miss if she died. Betsy after killing her husband explained to the police that she had snapped and shot him and could not remember what had happened. This defence fully applies to her case and it can be used to reduce the sentencing or wording of the crime from murder to manslaughter. It is up to the prosecution to proof whether Betsy actions were that of a reasonable person or did she have time to think about her actions. In the case of R v, Thornton6 the court after considering evidence the defendant was convicted of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. In the case of R v Humphreys7, the defendant had lost self-control after several years of abuse and in turn stabbed her husband. The defendant state that her husband last words were the last stroke .The court stated that the conviction for murder was unsafe because the defendant had psychological problems from abuse and should have been attributed to the reasonable test. Catherine8 explains that the defendant must produce evidence to show the act of murder resulted from loss of control that had a qualifying trigger and that a reasonable person would act in the same way. In looking at whether there was a qualifying trigger courts look at factors like revenge. The defences of loss of sell control is used by defendants to reduce mandatory life sentences Discussion The crime that Betsy committed was that of murder since her actions led to the death of her husband. As discussed above the prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Betsy had the intention to commit murder of another human being. In establishing, the prosecutor must adduce evidence to show that there was mens rea and the actus reus had causal link to the death. According to the facts of this case, the prosecutor may state that due to her earlier abuse from her husband Betsy had premeditated before actually killing him. Purchase of the gun can be used as solid evidence of proof of pre- parathion and waiting for the perfect chance to act. Another issue the prosecutor can raise before the courts its Betsy acts of leaving her children at her mother’s house this can establish that she knew she was to do something to her husband and did not want her children to be part of it or witness it. On the other hand the criminal attorney for Betsy can argue out that yes there was actus reus due to her shooting her husband but she lacked the mens rea (intention).This will enable the courts to reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter. Proof of intention is established according to facts of a case. The viable defence for Betsy is to plead provocation that is loss of self-control. This defence is capable of reducing liability. As discussed above the defence can claim that insults from her husband provoked her to act in the same way where she was insulted .Betsy informed the police that she snapped and lost control. The best test the courts should use is to use the R v Cunningham test rule. Reckless means taking unjustified risk .Courts look at the subjective test or objective test should apply to recklessness. In the Cunningham case, the courts applied the subjective test. In this case, the court looked at whether the defendant could foresee harm that occurred. The case of R v Parker 9 modifies this test and includes closing someone’s eye to obvious risks. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Betsy committed the actus reus in certain state of mind. The guilty mind required to convict a person of the crime depends with every case. In the Cunningham case, the word malicious was replaced to mean reckless10. This was changed because it was to narrow in its scope. Reckless has a wider capacity for courts interpretation. In the case of R, v G introduced the test of a reasonable adult where risk must be must be obvious to the reasonable prudent person In conclusion, Betsy has a right in law to use the provocation defence since she claims she snapped and lost control therefore she was not in full control of her actions. This defence negates the mens rea of committing murder and the case can be reduced from murder to manslaughter. The court must use the test of a reasonable prudent person to establish whether she acted in an appropriate manner without using excess force and whether a reasonable person could have acted in the same way in similar circumstances. The prosecution in this case has the duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had the mens rea required in murder cases and show causation that is the link between the actus reus and mens rea. References Case Law R v Cunningham (1957) 2 QB 396 R v Humphrey (1995) 4 All ER R v Parker (1976) CA R v Thornton (1996) 1 WLR 1174 R v Wooling (1999) AC 82 Books and Articles Top of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bonner, Raymond. 2013. Anatomy of injustice: a murder case gone wrong. New York: Vintage Books. Catherine Elliot and Frances Quinn, Criminal Law **AVAILABLE AS AN E-BOOK** (8th edn Pearson Education, London 2008) David Ormerod, Smith and Hogan Criminal Law Cases and Materials (12th edn OUP, Oxford 2011) Great Britain. 2006. Murder, manslaughter and infanticide project 6 of the ninth programme of law reform : homicide. London: Stationery Office. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc304.pdf. Nielsen, G. T. "Strafferet I, Ansvaret, 3. udg." Djøf/Jurist-og Økonomforbundet, København (2008). Schabas, William A. "The Jelisic case and the mens rea of the crime of genocide." Leiden Journal of International Law 14, no. 01 (2001): 125-139 Read More