How Does Anthony Prove The Actus Reus For Murder
1- Definition of murder.
Murder is an offence under common law, and it is considered the most serious form of homicide.
The classic definition of murder was given by Coke , which says: "Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same."
This explanation is the primary source of the definition cited nowadays by The Lord Chief of Justice. However, this has suffered some changes. For example, the “year and a day rule” has been …show more content…
2. Discuss whether the prosecution can prove that Anthony has committed the actus reus for murder.
In my perception, the situation suggests that Anthony’s action of pushing a large rock over the bridge where the victim was walking under is, in fact, the main cause of victim’s death.
It is shown on the scenario a chain of causation, but any of the novus actus interveniens does not break the chain.
Dealing with causation in criminal liability, we need to apply the “but for test” : “would the result have occurred but for the actions of the defendant?”. In this particular case, the answer is no, so it is correct to say that Anthony is liable for this crime.
He caused, beyond reasonable doubt, Ben’s death. And this can be proved by the prosecution in order to obtain a …show more content…
But the prosecution can argue that Anthony acts were, in fact, a revenge for Ben’s actions. Consequently, he might had the intention to do more than frighten him.
In my understanding, this is a case of unintentional unlawful killing, meaning by this that instead of murder, this homicide is an involuntary manslaughter. The reason why is because D acted as a depressed person, therefore his act cannot be compared to what a reasonable person would do.
4. Identify any defence(s) to murder on which Anthony might be able to rely, and explain what is required for each such defence. Which is more likely to succeed?
There are two partial defences to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter.
Those
Murder is an offence under common law, and it is considered the most serious form of homicide.
The classic definition of murder was given by Coke , which says: "Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same."
This explanation is the primary source of the definition cited nowadays by The Lord Chief of Justice. However, this has suffered some changes. For example, the “year and a day rule” has been …show more content…
2. Discuss whether the prosecution can prove that Anthony has committed the actus reus for murder.
In my perception, the situation suggests that Anthony’s action of pushing a large rock over the bridge where the victim was walking under is, in fact, the main cause of victim’s death.
It is shown on the scenario a chain of causation, but any of the novus actus interveniens does not break the chain.
Dealing with causation in criminal liability, we need to apply the “but for test” : “would the result have occurred but for the actions of the defendant?”. In this particular case, the answer is no, so it is correct to say that Anthony is liable for this crime.
He caused, beyond reasonable doubt, Ben’s death. And this can be proved by the prosecution in order to obtain a …show more content…
But the prosecution can argue that Anthony acts were, in fact, a revenge for Ben’s actions. Consequently, he might had the intention to do more than frighten him.
In my understanding, this is a case of unintentional unlawful killing, meaning by this that instead of murder, this homicide is an involuntary manslaughter. The reason why is because D acted as a depressed person, therefore his act cannot be compared to what a reasonable person would do.
4. Identify any defence(s) to murder on which Anthony might be able to rely, and explain what is required for each such defence. Which is more likely to succeed?
There are two partial defences to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter.
Those