Miss

Criminal law
Assignment 2 – homicide problem
Part A – Case study
Actus reus and mens rea meaning: Murder is defined in law as causing the death of a human being within the Queen’s peace with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. So in order convict a person of murder these two elements have to be proved, these are the act was unlawful (actus reus) and the intention (mens rea). Since the Law Reforms “Year and a Day Rule” Act 1996 it is not necessary for the death to occur within a year and a day of the act or omission. The first element to be satisfied is the mens rea, the awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal. Robert v Anna and unborn baby, In order for Robert to be charged with Murder, you have to prove the two elements, the first element being mens rea which from the above it proves that Robert’s act, with the gun resulted in Anna being shot and the bullet lodged in the unborn baby. Anna survived, but her unborn baby perished. Secondly you have to prove then the actus rea. This case states that Robert suffered from a mental disorder, so he was not in the right state of mind and he was unable to perceive the nature of his acts and unable to tell right from wrong at the time. So in this case Robert would not be charged with Murder.
GBH as insanity is a full defence, although Robert would have been given a hospital order as the courts also needs to consider Robert against current social concerns with public protection and risk prevention.
In the case of Arnold v Robert, the two elements can be proved actus rea, as The act was unlawful and also the mens rea as Arnold had the intention. The act was committed, several hours after the initial attack. This shows that Arnold had planned this unlawful act, which resulted in Robert’s death, being within the Queen’s peace with the intention to kill. Arnold would therefore be convicted of First-degree murder, as the killing was “planned and deliberate”. Those convicted of first-degree murder receive an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years. Anna v Arnold in this case Annabel stabbed Arnold Seventeen times so therefore this would be seen as excessive and Annabel would not be able to use the defence of self-defence as the amount of stabs inflicted would not be seen as in keeping with self-defence. Anna would not be charged with Murder as the Mens Rea was not present. Anna could therefore be charged with Manslaughter using the defence of diminished responsibility.

Part B Q2
Murder is a killing with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought means any one of three things: you intended to kill, you intended to cause severe bodily harm, or the killing occurred during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. 2 of the 3 possibilities do not require the intent to kill, nor do they require premeditation.
Manslaughter comes in two forms: intentional and unintentional. Unintentional manslaughter is a killing that occurs as a result of highly reckless conduct (i.e. you should have known that death could result). Intentional manslaughter is murder (i.e. a killing with malice aforethought), but with some mitigating factor. These factors vary by state but usually include: an intentional killing done in the heat of passion, an intentional killing done in what you thought was self-defence, but was not legally justified, or in a minority of states, a killing that occurs during the commission of a misdemeanour.

Part B Q3
Diminished responsibility is one of three special defences which exist solely for the offence of murder. It is contained in the Homicide Act 1957 as modified by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Where the defence of diminished responsibility is successfully pleaded, it has the effect of reducing a murder conviction to manslaughter. The three special defences of diminished responsibility, loss of control and suicide pact differ from general defences in that they do not apply to all crimes and also the effect is to reduce criminal liability rather than to absolve the defendant from liability completely.
Insanity is a general defence which is available to all crimes. Where a defendant is found to be insane, the jury are directed to give a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' this previously meant automatic admittance to secure accommodation. This often resulted in lifetime institutionalisation. Mandatory detention still applies where the penalty for the offence is fixed by law e.g. murder. In all other cases detention is at the discretion of the judge under Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. The defence of insanity is unique in that it may be raised by the prosecution and judge in addition to the defence. Indeed, it is generally the defence seeking to avoid a finding of insanity and often the defendant will change a plea to guilty to avoid a finding of insanity. The defence has declined in importance and is less used since the abolition of the death penalty and the introduction of the defence of diminished responsibility in relation to murder.
A partial defence for murder are Loss of control which was previously called provocation, Diminished responsibility and Killing in pursuance of a suicide pact. Provocation, since the 1957 Act, it has been capable for anything to constitute provocation, including words alone, actions by third parties, and provocation directed at third parties. As in the case of ( R v Doughty 1986 ).

Loss of control is where a victim of sustained abuse kills their abuser in order to thwart an attack which is anticipated but not immediately imminent. Where someone overreacts to what they perceive as an imminent threat. The abnormality of mental functioning, arising from a recognised medical condition. This defence can only be used if the person has a recognised medical condition, which does not have to be permanent but must exist at the time of killing.
The following cases highlight this. (R v Byrne 1960), (R v Seers 1984).

Part B question 4
The theories and aims for sentencing people found guilty of homicide include, mandatory life sentences, Retribution because the criminal is being punished an eye for an eye, a life for a life, this also shows the consequences. Incapacitation to make sure the offender has no way of reoffending providing safety of the public and showing signs of disproval to society. Deterrence, showing the public that the threat of a life sentence, for murdering someone is a definite conclusion. The criminal justice act 2003 section 269 states the judge can impose the minimum number of years the prisoner must serve before being eligible for release on license.