Joe And Luko Case Summary
This question examines the criminal liability of Joe and Luo in the deaths of Karla and Mick.
Joe could be charged with gross negligence manslaughter on the death of Karla. He cannot be charged for murder and voluntary manslaughter because he does not meet the mens rea requirements for intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. He cannot also be charged for unlawful act manslaughter because he has not committed an act but instead has failed to act.
The court has established in the case of Adamako[1995] following Bateman [1925] , that ordinary negligence requirements apply to ascertain the existence and breach of duty of care. Therefore, in order to be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, D must owe a duty of care to V, must have breached that duty, and the breach must have caused V’s death. This breach must have been grossly negligent.
The first issue to be examined is whether D owed a duty of care to V. Where the crime is by an omission, the duty of care would be determined on basis of whether there is duty to act. Since V’s death resulted from an omission rather than an act, it would first be determined whether D had a duty to act. Where D had …show more content…
Although Luo is 23, she is however a woman and due to the physical inequality of women compared to men especially considering that Mick was a violent man and gang member this would lead to a lower degree of self-restraint. The defendant’s sister had just been killed and this could justify her anger in the circumstances and therefore a reasonable person of D’s age and sex in the same circumstances might have killed V. It is however not enough that D has lost self-control; the reasonable person must have killed in the same manner in the circumstances . A reasonable woman in Luo’s circumstances might have killed also in the same
Joe could be charged with gross negligence manslaughter on the death of Karla. He cannot be charged for murder and voluntary manslaughter because he does not meet the mens rea requirements for intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. He cannot also be charged for unlawful act manslaughter because he has not committed an act but instead has failed to act.
The court has established in the case of Adamako[1995] following Bateman [1925] , that ordinary negligence requirements apply to ascertain the existence and breach of duty of care. Therefore, in order to be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, D must owe a duty of care to V, must have breached that duty, and the breach must have caused V’s death. This breach must have been grossly negligent.
The first issue to be examined is whether D owed a duty of care to V. Where the crime is by an omission, the duty of care would be determined on basis of whether there is duty to act. Since V’s death resulted from an omission rather than an act, it would first be determined whether D had a duty to act. Where D had …show more content…
Although Luo is 23, she is however a woman and due to the physical inequality of women compared to men especially considering that Mick was a violent man and gang member this would lead to a lower degree of self-restraint. The defendant’s sister had just been killed and this could justify her anger in the circumstances and therefore a reasonable person of D’s age and sex in the same circumstances might have killed V. It is however not enough that D has lost self-control; the reasonable person must have killed in the same manner in the circumstances . A reasonable woman in Luo’s circumstances might have killed also in the same