StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Man Test for Criminal Cases - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
The essay "Man Test for Criminal Cases" determines that the reasonable man test is a method by which a defendant’s level of self-control is measured in the prosecution of criminal cases.  …
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER95.8% of users find it useful
Man Test for Criminal Cases
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Man Test for Criminal Cases"

The reasonable man test is a method by which a defendant’s level of self-control is measured in the prosecution of criminal cases. Lord Diplock defined the reasonable man as ‘…an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today. . .’1 In practice however, the concept of the reasonable man is merely an anomaly since as is quite often the case the courts have held that it is not possible to ignore certain special characteristics of a single defendant and substitute some hypothetical version of the ideal man or woman. In Camplin [1978] Lord Simon said ‘it is one thing to invoke the reasonable man for the standard of self-control which the law requires: it is quite another to substitute some hypothetical being from whom all mental and physical attributes (except perhaps sex) have been abstracted.’2 The reasonable man enigma has been the subject of much discussion in cases involving defences of provocation and demonstrates the extent to which this concept has from time to time been reduced by and large to a more subjective test. At times it appears to be more of a consideration of the level of control expected of the defendant, given his particular character traits. Section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 provides that ‘where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question, the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.’3 Prior to the implementation of Section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 common law recognized the application of the reasonable man case but was more inclined to apply it in the strict sense. For instance in R v Lesbini [1914] 3 K.B. 1116 the defendant raised provocation as a defence and argued that although he was sane he was ‘afflicted with defective control and want of mental balance’ therefore the objective test could not apply to his case. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and maintained that the standard to be applied was the reasonable man test, and that the objective level of self control of the ordinary man would apply.4 In Bedder v. DPP [1954] 2 All E.R. 801 the House of Lords adhered to the strict interpretation of the reasonable man test as applied in the Lesbini case. In Bedder the defendant who was impotent killed a prostitute who had mocked his impotence. At his trial he raised provocation as a defence. He argued that his impotence took him outside of the dynamics of the reasonable man. On appeal the House of Lords rejected that argument and held that the test was that of the reasonable man.5 However, the court backpedaled in the case of Camplin [1978] and basically redefined the concept of the reasonable man. In this case a fifteen year old boy was mocked by the decadent for exhibiting signs of shame and embarrassment after having engaged in anal sex. The boy was moved to anger to such and extent that he killed the decadent by hitting him in the head with a weapon which crushed the victim’s skull.6 Lord Diplock expressed the view that it would be entirely unfair to strictly apply the reasonable man test while ignoring specific character traits of the accused person. He said, ‘it would stultify much of the mitigation of the previous harshness of the common law in ruling out verbal provocation as capable of reducing murder to manslaughter if the jury could not take into consideration all those factors which in their opinion would affect the gravity of taunts or insults when applied to the person whom they are addressed. So to this extent at any rate the unqualified proposition accepted by this House in Bedder v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1119 that for the purposes of the reasonable man test any unusual physical characteristics of the accused must be ignored requires revision as a result of the passing of the Act of 1957.’7 The reasonable man was redefined to mean a person with the power or level of self control attributed to the ordinary person who was the same gender and age of the person on trial, ‘but in other respects sharing such of the accuseds characteristics as they think would affect the gravity of the provocation to him; and that the question is not merely whether such a person would in like circumstances be provoked to lose his self-control but also whether he would react to the provocation as the accused did.’8 In R v Morhall [1996] A.C. 90 the House of Lords reconstructed the reasonable man test to such an extent that it was virtually substituted by a more subjective test. It is decisions such as this that compromise the extent to which the reasonable man exist in criminal law. In R v Morhall, the victim taunted the defendant about his glue-sniffing addiction. The House of Lords had to determine whether the addiction was such that it ought to have been considered in assessing the defendant’s defence of provocation.9 Lord Goff with whom the remaining lords in the House of Lords agreed submitted that the addiction ought to have been taken into account. In fact, Lord Goff was of the opinion that ‘the entire factual situation’ was relevant.10 The entire factual situation would not be limited to characteristics but would also include matters which might not be to the defendant’s credit. He went on to say ‘. . . [S]uppose that a man who has been in prison for a sexual offence, for example rape, has after his release been taunted by another man with reference to that offence. It is difficult to see why, on ordinary principles, his characteristic or history as an offender of that kind should not be taken into account as going to the gravity of the provocation.’11 In R v Morgan Smith [2001] 1 A.C. 146 the House of Lords abandoned the concept of the reasonable man altogether making allowances for the consideration of any of the defendant’s own characteristics to be applied to the reasonable man test. In other words a wholly subjective test was permitted as a standard for all cases. Lord Hoffman explained that ’…the jury may think that there was some characteristic of the accused, whether temporary or permanent, which affected the degree of control which society could reasonably have expected of him and which it would be unjust not to take into account. If the jury take this view, they are at liberty to give effect to it.’12 The Morgan Smith decision however has been severely criticized and there appears to be a reversion to the more quasi reasonable man test. The position submitted by professor Ashworth in his article “The Doctrine of Provocation,” 35 Cambridge Law Journal 292, at 300 (1976) appears to be a more accurate representation of the applicable test. Profession Ashworth said that ‘the proper distinction . . . is that individual peculiarities which bear on the gravity of the provocation should be taken into account, whereas individual peculiarities bearing on the accused’s level of self-control should not.’13 The difficulty with the Morgan Smith decision is that it invites a departure from the standards of consistency required of the criminal justice system. This obscuring of the reasonable man test opened the door for a tailored standard to be applied to individual defendants in individual cases. What we were left with was a purely undesirable method of excusing conduct based on a pattern of behavior which was criminal in nature. For instance, based on the Morgan Smith test a man who was predisposed to ill-temper and violent outbursts might be expected to lose his control in the circumstances of a particular case where an ordinary man of ordinary temperament might not. Based on the Morgan Smith test, a man of ill temper might be excused whereas a man of ordinary temperament might not. The Privy Council in Attorney-General for Jersey v. Holley [2005] 3 All E.R. 371 abandoned the Morgan Smith test and restored the previous reasonable man test with some application of the particular circumstances. Lord Nicholls said, ‘under the statute the sufficiency of the provocation ... is to be judged by one standard, not a standard which varies from defendant to defendant. Whether the provocative act or words and the defendant’s response met the “ordinary person” standard prescribed by the statute is the question the jury must consider, not the altogether looser question of whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the jury consider the loss of self-control was sufficiently excusable. The statute does not leave each jury free to set whatever standard they consider appropriate in the circumstances by which to judge whether the defendant’s conduct is ‘excusable’.’14 As it now stands in English criminal law, the concept of the reasonable man was restated in R v James and Karimi [2006] EWCA Crim 14. This concept mirrors that of the Privy Council’s position in the Holley case. The test basically permits the consideration of the level of control expected or an ordinary man of ordinary temperament, the defendant’s age together with all the circumstances of the particular case ‘other than matters whose only relevance to the defendant’s conduct is that they bear simply on his or her general capacity for self-control.’15 The concept of the reasonable man test can only be said to be consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word ‘reasonable’ if it is applied strictly in all cases. As seen in the Camplin case the strict application of the reasonable man test would produce rather unjust results. On the other hand too far a departure from the strict application of the test would also produce unfair results, permitting entirely criminal conduct to be excuses when it would be entirely unconscionable to do so. Therefore the standard set by R v James and Karini which permits consideration of the circumstances of the case while disallowing excuses such as a predisposition to ill temper, is fair and permits the application of the reasonable man test as far as possible to meet the ends of justice. Bibliography Attorney-General for Jersey v. Holley [2005] 3 All E.R. 371 Ashworth, Andrew J. “The Doctrine of Provocation,” 35 Cambridge Law Journal (1976) 292, at 300 Bedder v. DPP [1954] 2 All E.R. 801 Camplin [1978] A.C. 705 Homicide Act 1957 Law Commission, “A New Homicide Act for England and Wales?” (Law Com. Consultation Paper No. 177, 2005) R v Lesbini [1914] 3 K.B. 1116 R v Morgan Smith [2001] 1 A.C. 146 R v Morhall [1996] A.C. 90 Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(Man Test for Criminal Cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words, n.d.)
Man Test for Criminal Cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words. https://studentshare.org/law/1706954-critically-assess-the-extent-to-which-you-believe-the-reasonable-man-exists-in-the-criminal-law
(Man Test for Criminal Cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words)
Man Test for Criminal Cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words. https://studentshare.org/law/1706954-critically-assess-the-extent-to-which-you-believe-the-reasonable-man-exists-in-the-criminal-law.
“Man Test for Criminal Cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words”. https://studentshare.org/law/1706954-critically-assess-the-extent-to-which-you-believe-the-reasonable-man-exists-in-the-criminal-law.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Man Test for Criminal Cases

Criminal Liability

Pitwood is often regarded as a classic case of criminal liability for omission, Wright's actual words leave some room for doubt: Thus the judge may actually have been seeing liability coming from the fact that Pitwood had left the level crossing gate open rather than the fact that he had not shut the level crossing gate.... This was a case of gross negligence manslaughter, a crime that is a useful background to the whole subject of criminal liability for omission....
4 Pages (1000 words) Case Study

Z / T Statistic Tools in Comparing Means

In this case study I am going to write about the application of the use of of z-test and t-test in comparing two means.... Since this test is two-tailed, the figure is multiplied by two to give a probability of 0.... Had the test been conducted in at a pre-specified significance levels of say α < 0....
3 Pages (750 words) Case Study

Principles of Reintegration Model

The rational basis test is used mainly in cases where no fundamental rights are at stake.... If a law cannot pass the rational basis test, then it translates that it is not legitimate and cannot be used in the criminal justice system.... Elements of the Rational Basis test.... The Rational Basis test is used to determine whether a law is constitutional.... Therefore, according to the test or for a law to pass the rational basis test, it must be established that it is related to a legitimate government interest....
2 Pages (500 words) Case Study

The Law of Negligence

hellip; In negligence cases, it had been the practice to differentiate between injury caused to the body and psychiatric damage.... With this decision, the court reiterated the extant judicial stance that no compensation would be granted in cases, involving a claim that relied on a criminal act.... The trial court accepted this contention and ruled that the claimant being responsible for his deeds, it would not countenance any claim for compensation that was on the basis of a criminal offence....
7 Pages (1750 words) Case Study

Who, If Anyone, Is Criminally Responsible for the Death of William

However, UK courts have been reluctant to break the chain of causation in cases where medical negligence is involved.... The author of "Who, If Anyone, Is Criminally Responsible for the Death of William" paper analizes the issue arises as to who in fact is liable and if liability can be established under criminal law, whether any defenses are available under the circumstances.... hellip; In summary, it is highly likely that Simon will be liable for William's death factually and legally on the causation test....
10 Pages (2500 words) Case Study

Ministere Public v Deserbais

This work called "Ministere Public v Deserbais" focuses on controversial cases and possible conflicts after judgments.... cases that generate conflicts are normally those in which the land's laws are not quite parallel to the provisions of international laws.... There have been several cases that have fuelled heated debates in Europe over the past several decades.... One of the most popular cases relating to such conflicts was the Case 286/86 Ministere Public v Deserbais [1988] ECR 4907....
6 Pages (1500 words) Case Study

Fraud and Theft

The law lowers the bar on such cases to cover cases where the tort is a result of omission.... This work called "Fraud and Theft" describes the concept of some particular criminal case.... From this work, it is clear whether Sebastian's sale of the business class ticket and its replacement by a cheaper one for his own financial benefit amounts to fraud....
6 Pages (1500 words) Case Study

Claim Compensation for the Injury in Whacky Builders Ltd

A number of the cases below fall into the murky category where someone has to take responsibility though such responsibility need not be considered one of criminality.... While many of the behaviors mentioned above may be reprehensible there is no universal agreement on what is criminal and what is not, at least in the minds of individuals.... In part, it is with this in mind that the law tries to establish the parameters or bounds within which an act might be considered criminal....
10 Pages (2500 words) Case Study
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us