Criminal 4: Homicide by Sophie https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm Made with a dash of wit en-us 2017-01-30 11:57:16 UTC 2023-02-17 17:01:38 UTC hello@padlet.com HOMICIDE sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/152471377 The ACTUS REUS of all homicide offences is the same.
The labelling will be determined by the mens rea and partial defences.

Homicide i considered to be the most serious criminal offence. ]]> 2017-02-08 14:37:25 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/152471377 Problem Question sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274285
Isabel and Jude live next door to Gill. For some time, Isabel and Jude have been irritated by Gill’s loud late night parties. One evening, a sleep deprived Jude loses his temper and starts knocking and screaming on Gill’s door. When she opens it he confronts her about the noise, but she just shrugs, laughs and shuts the door in his face. Enraged by this, he picks up a brick and throws it throws it at Gill through her lounge window. The brick hits her head and she dies of her injuries shortly afterwards.

Jude returns home and tells Isabel what he has done. She is horrified and runs out of the house, saying that she is going to go for a drive in order to ‘clear her head’. She sees a red light at an approaching pelican crossing and a pedestrian waiting, but decides not to stop and instead that she will frighten the pedestrian into crossing the road more quickly. She knocks Mark, the pedestrian, over as he crosses the road. He sustains massive internal injuries and dies a week later in hospital.

Discuss any criminal liability arising. Comment critically on the law that you have applied.
]]> 2017-05-05 21:18:41 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274285 Essay Question 1 sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274321 With reference to Lord Mackay’s judgment in Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79, is it fair that doctors should face criminal prosecution at all when a patient dies? What do you think the 
mens rea for ‘gross negligence manslaughter’ is and what ought it to be?
]]> 2017-05-05 21:19:16 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274321 Essay Question 2 sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274332 ‘The abolition of the old defence of provocation and the reform of diminished responsibility is a radical change to the laws of homicide, and will finally provide a morally justifiable basis for distinguishing between murders and less serious killings.’

To what extent, if at all, do you agree with this statement?
]]> 2017-05-05 21:19:30 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274332 MURDER sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274614 2017-05-05 21:23:01 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274614 VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274627 2017-05-05 21:23:13 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274627 INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274676 2017-05-05 21:23:41 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170274676 DEFENCE: LOSS OF CONTROL sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170277796 This can ONLY be a defence for murder. It is partial. These provisions are made out in s 54 in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 where the old defence of provocation was abolished. It is a partial concession to human frailty.

Requirements:
  1. LOSS OF CONTROL (SUBJECTIVE)
    • This is a subjective question with limited application. 
    • It must not be in revenge. 
    • Doesn't need to be sudden (change to provocation) as required in Duffy [1949].
  2. QUALIFYING TRIGGER
    • Fear or serious violence from victim/other.
    • Loss of control was attributable to things said or done (in s 55).
    • Trigger must cause loss of control (not an excuse for violence): Dawes [2013]: the defendant broke into his ex-wife's house and killed her new partner. 
    • Sexual infidelity is also not permissible as there was a gender imbalance. 
    • In Clinton [2013] a partner taunted the other about his suicide attempts and infidelity. Loss of control not allowed initially for infidelity taunts but statute widely interpreted to include suicide attempts taunts
  3. A SIMILAR PERSON WOULD HAVE ACTED IN THE SAME WAY (OBJECTIVE)
    • The jury will apply the 'reasonable person' objective test as its felt to be important in restraining the applicability of the defence.
    • DPP v Camplin [1978] comes from provocation. A sexually abused boy killed his offender. 
    • In Jersey v Holley [2005] it was determined that only age and sex could be taken into account, or the test would become subjective. This was transposed into s 54(1).
]]> 2017-05-05 22:18:55 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170277796 GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170318473
  • Duty of care owed
  • Breach of duty
  • Breach caused death
  • The breach was grossly negligent as in Adomako [1995]
    • This justifies it as a criminal conviction.
    • Risk or recklessness is not required. 
    • In Misra [2005] a doctor failed to see an infection that a patient caught post-operatively. This confirmed Lord MacKay's judgment.

    • ]]>     2017-05-06 16:52:06 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170318473     ACTUS REUS sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170389899
  • PERSON OF SOUND MIND
    • Foetuses are not included: AG Ref No 3 of 1994 [1998].
    • Those who are brain dead do not count: 
  • UNLAWFUL ACTION OR OMISSION
  • KILLED
  • HUMAN
  • UNDER QUEEN'S PEACE

    • ]]>     2017-05-07 21:30:01 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170389899     MENS REA sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170389910
  • INTENTION TO KILL (express malice) or INTENTION TO CAUSE GBH (implied malice)
    • This was established in Cunningham [1982] (where the defendant only meant to cause GBH).
    • In DPP v Smith it was established that the most serious offences can only be subjective.
    • This requires direct intention as in the normal meaning, unless there is oblique intention in which case the Woollin [1999] test is applied. 
    • This is a product of the common law.

    • ]]>     2017-05-07 21:30:07 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170389910     ACTUS REUS sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170391631 The same as murder]]> 2017-05-07 21:57:36 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170391631 MENS REA sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170391646 The same as murder, but defences may reduce the labelling:
    • Loss of control.
    • Diminished responsibility.
    ]]>     2017-05-07 21:57:48 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170391646     MENS REA sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170391689 There must be the mens rea for the unlawful act i.e. arson AR and MR must both be present.]]> 2017-05-07 21:58:29 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170391689 DEFENCE: DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170392540 Again, only applied to murder to reduce to manslaughter. Also requires trial judge to decide whether they will hear evidence for the defence.
    S 2 Homicide Act 1957 established the defence but it has been updated by Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to enforce medical conditions so it is is not too defendant friendly.
    1. Abnormality of mental functioning
      • This is temporary, not long term as in insanity.
    2. Recognised medical condition
      • Other emotions are not enough.

    3. Impaired the defendant's ability to:  
    ]]>     2017-05-07 22:12:39 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170392540     EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170392606 2017-05-07 22:13:46 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170392606 sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170464772 Suicide Act 1961 s 2 makes it an offence to encourage or assist someone in committing suicide.
    MR: If the act was intended to encourage or assist.]]>     2017-05-08 10:11:58 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170464772     kjsd sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170464877 2017-05-08 10:12:56 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170464877 DPP v Pretty [2002] and DPP v Purdy [2009] sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170465256 These reconfirm that the court will not change the law on euthanasia/assisted suicide. It is Parliament's decision. ]]> 2017-05-08 10:15:47 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170465256 INCHOATE sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170466315 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s 1(1) lays out the requirements

    ATTEMPTS]]>     2017-05-08 10:23:55 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170466315     ATTEMPTED MURDER sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170466442 Actus Reus:
    • An act (not omission, nor thinking or planning the event)
    • Which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence.

    Mens Rea:
    • Intention to commit murder 
    ]]>     2017-05-08 10:24:53 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170466442     ACTUS REUS sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170467619 This requires:
    1. Unlawful Act
      • It must be criminal: Lamb [1967]
      • Only an act, not omission: Lowe [1973] (father charged for wilful neglect of his son, but couldn't be manslaughter because there was no unlawful act, just an omission).
    2. Which is dangerous
      • Objective test for act being dangerous: Newbury [1977] (boys threw slabs off a bridge, they did not have the mens rea for death).
      • Church [1966] (a man killed a woman for taunting him about his impotence; he panics and disposes of her in a river). The court confirms this is a 'reasonable person' objective test.
    3. Which causes death
      1. Kennedy (No. 2) [2007]: supply drugs caused death.


    ]]>     2017-05-08 10:34:12 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170467619     INVOLUNTARY ACT/CONSTRUCTIVE MANSLAUGHTER sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170470593 2017-05-08 10:52:43 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170470593 sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170497142 dsfdad]]> 2017-05-08 13:10:46 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170497142 SECONDARY PARTICIPATION sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170528929 Principal - perpetrator of crime
    • Joint Principals - if two commit a crime and the perpetrator is not clear both can be joint principals.

    Innocent agency:     
    • Michael (1840) a woman wanted to kill her baby with poison but her child fed the baby the poison thinking it was medicine. 

    Aiding/Abetting/Counselling/Procuring
    • Giannetto 1997 - don't need to specify which of the above.
    • Aiding or Abetting are synonymous
    • No duty to intervene (Clarkson 1971)
    • Positive act of encouragement or long presence is act of aiding (Francom 1980)
    • Existing duty (Rubie v Falkner 1940) driving instructor, they cannot escape liability for doing nothing.
    • Counselling
    • Low bar, a small act of encouragement (Giannetto 1997)
    • Procuring
    • Faulty equipment (Millward 1994) was procuring, but in (Beatty v Gillbanks 1882) the  
    ]]>     2017-05-08 14:50:32 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170528929     STRUCTURE sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170537044 Joint principles - both must contribute to actus reus of offence.

    Principle and accessory - one party commits the actus reus and the other provides assistance.

    Accessory must know what the crime is, not just a general idea i.e. lending equipment.]]>     2017-05-08 15:16:07 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170537044     JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE sxh1006 https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170542273 R v Jogee (2016): Jogee and Hirsi went to woman's house while intoxicated twice and then a third time when her boyfriend returned. Hirsi killed Fyfe and Jogee was also convicted because 'the mens rea of the secondary party's crime is an appreciation that the primary actor  might inflict grievous bodily hamr and a willingness to lend his support notwithstanding.' So knowledge of impending crime was enough to convict for JCE.

    The Supreme Court: had to consider fair labelling. Should the secondary party be convicted of manslaughter as they don't have the mens rea.]]>     2017-05-08 15:31:37 UTC https://padlet.com/sxh1006/p7lfdta8tfvm/wish/170542273