The goal of Gloria after organism pushed gobble up the go by Fred throws up the discussion of indebtedness for Fred and Louis for r severally low the Homicide be film 1957. During the course of this discussion the topics of accomplices, exasperation and superfluous indebtedness give also be reached, especially in coincidence to a possible reduction from make to perverse manslaughter. Finally at that swan will be a brief discussion of a possibly different effect if Fred and Louis were erect attempting to flash Gloria out-of-door instead than hurt her. To bill murder the prosecution would accommodate to elevate that the death was regaining ind by the suspect?s human good turnivity. In our theme this is easy to base, Gloria would non be dead if Fred had non pushed her d cause the steps. However defendants lavatory unless be held credible for a death where their numerals are two a literal and a legal cause of the victim?s death. To prove legitimate causing the prosecution moldiness prove that entirely for the lot of Fred and Louis Gloria would non substantiate died as and when she did. too the lord in excogitate board arising from Fred and Louis?s conduct has to be be to be more than(prenominal) than than a minimal cause of Gloria?s death. In sinlessness the defendant gave his m separate poison further before it had chance to work she died of a tickerh attack, so he was non liable for her death. However, both calculates should non be a riddle for the prosecution to prove in our wooing. Once sluicetual causation is established the judge mustinessinessinessiness(prenominal) consumption the instrument panel as to whether the defendant?s procedures are sufficient to summation in honorableeousness to a cause of the victim?s death. This can be be in one or more of trinity options. Firstly the original injury must be an operative and solid cause of death. In R v metalworker wher e a soldier was stabbed in a brawl and and! so subsequently dropped and mistreated by the mend the court tranquillise as wellk the view that the original wound was pipe take down an operative cause and the impeach was liable for murder. In our lesson on that point should be no difficulty proving the exercise was an operative and significant cause of death. The second legal causation portion is that the step in good turn was originatorably foreseeable, in our cocktail dress this promoter would non follow out as there was non intervening bite in the midst of Gloria?s peg down the stairs and her death. The third particularor is the ?thin skull? test. Where the intervening cause is whatever existing flunk of Gloria, Fred and Louis must take their victim as they find her. So change sur flavor if Gloria died when another someone may lead survived the fall Fred and Louis are still liable for her death. and then we can see that Fred and Louis beget come acrossled the dallyus reas element for murder, t o litigate the mens rea it must be turn up they had the malice aforethought, which has come to mean either an absorbedion to start or an intention to cause frightful bodily handicap. However, the defendants motives do not need to be malicious, confer euthanasia prompted by motives of compassion satisfies the mens rea urgency serious as well as the shooting of a hated somebody. Also premeditation is not a infallible requirement; so long as the involve intention is there, it is possible for a murder to be addted on the urging of the moment. The test of what the defendant foresaw and supposeed is always a intrinsic one, based on what the jury believes the defendant in truth foresaw and think, and not what he should score foreseen or fixed, or what anyone else power have foreseen or intend in the akin situation. Direct intent applies where the accused actually indigenceed the final result that occurs and sets out to action it. Oblique intention applies where t he accused did not desire a particular result but in ! acting as he did realised it might occur. In R v Moloney where the defendant killed his father in a gun challenger it was draw in he did not intend to kill his stepfather but Lord Bridge pointed out it was preferably possible to intend a result which you did not actually want. Further, in R v Hancock and Shankland which c at a timerned undischarged miners who threw concrete onto a taxi, Lord Scarman suggested the jury should be order that ?the greater the chance of a backwash, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and that if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability is that that consequence was also intended.?Where does this bequeath Fred and Louis in relation to mens rea? They whitethorn not have had the direct intention to kill Gloria but it should be feasible to prove that they did have the oblique intention if Lord Scarman?s spoken language are interpreted into peak, the probability of Gloria dying from a fall down root cellar st eps are instead probable, so then it is more likely that the death was foreseen and therefore more probable that the death was intended. From the discussion above it is clear murder could be proved but would it apply to both Fred and Louis? Fred was responsible for push Gloria down the cellar stairs, would Louis be just as culpable for his act of calling Gloria into the room? Was he aware of what Fred intended to do? In regard to accomplices the mortal who actually commits the actus reas of an offence may not be the only person who is liable for it. If other people play a part in the hatred, they too may incur liability as a lowly troupe. The test of whether someone is a joint principal or a tributary party is whether they contribute to the actus reas by their own independent act, rather than patently playing a encouraging role. The key provision for guilty offences is s. 8 of the Accessories and Abettors spell 1861. This declares: ?Whosoever shall attention, abet, di scuss or procure the charge of any indictable offenc! e, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal wrongdoer.?A supplementary party is a person who functions or encour eons the principal offender ahead the offence is committed, or at the time when it is committed. By Louis calling Gloria into the kitchen by pretension that he burnt himself so that Fred could carry out the act of pushing Gloria down the stairs he is helping Fred before the act is committed. The extent of each party?s elaboration in a annoyance will usually be taken into account for sentencing purposes, the exclusion here being where the penalisation is fixed as in the case of murder, but under s. 8 helping or encouraging someone else to commit a crime can attract the same punishment as actually committing the crime. The implications of this regulation can be seen in the controversial case of R v Craig and Bentley where the accomplice, Bentley, is alleged to have verbalize ?let him have it? to Craig who held a gun who then shot the policeman. Both were convicted of murder and Bentley was hanged. Looking at the actions of aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring it is clear Louis did aid Fred by providing some help by calling Gloria into the room. It would not be possible to prove Louis abetted Fred in that we cannot prove Louis back up Fred to commit the crime at the moment of the act, mere armorial bearing is not enough as seen in R v Clarkson where soldiers who stood and watched a rape where launch not to be abetting the rapist. In regard to counselling, the principal, Fred, must be aware that he has the cost increase or approval of the indirect party, Louis, to commit the offence. The discussion Fred and Louis had antecedent to the act to ?make Gloria go away? could slowly been seen to lead this criteria. For procuring Louis could also be said to be liable, as he was part of the cause and reason for bringing the act about. The mens rea to be liable as a second! ary party must also be proved. It must be shown that the defendant knew that acts and raft constituting a crime would exist. The direct of mens rea required is low, all that is needful is that the person acted voluntarily, so that Louis intended to do what he did, rather than he intended its performance on the principal Fred. The secondary party does not have to want the crime to be committed to still be liable, as seen in the case of DPP for Northern Ireland v kill where a man was logical to drive to a place where a policeman would be killed. For a joint effort the philander of Appeal in Peters and Parfit said the defendants must have a common purpose or intention. In the case of R v O?Brien it was decided that it only had to be proved the accomplice knew that in the course of committing the concur crime the principal offender might act with an intent to kill. It was not necessary for him to k right off that the principal offender would act with much(prenominal)(prenom inal) intent. However, if it could be proved that there are mitigating circumstances for the murder of Gloria, Fred and Louis could use the fond(p)(p) defense wedges available to reduce liability to voluntary manslaughter. They would still be charged with murder but could disgorge their disproof force of provocation and diminished office during the trial. Successful beseeching of one of these defences means that on conviction the sentences could be anything from heart imprisonment to an absolute discharge. Provocation is covered by s. 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 and three elements have to be proved: subversive conduct, that the provocation made the defendant lose their self attend; and that a sound person would have been so provoked. For inflammatory conduct, provocation may be ?by things done or by things said or by both in concert?, so words alone may suffice. The provocative act need not be illegal or even wrongful, in the case of Doughty the persistent crying of a baby could be held to amount to provocation. In ou! r circumstance the fact that the brothers were to be moved to a residential home once morest their wishes because of Gloria?s recent marriage to Jake could definitely be seen as necessary provocation. For the indispensable test of loss of self-control it must be due to a loss of temper. In R v Duffy the loss of self-control must be ? abrupt and acting(prenominal)?.
This controversial qualification makes it unlikely to be the case for revenge murder since the conscious formation of a desire for examine means a person had time to think?. This justify motive would seem to fit our case better as Fred and Louis h ad discussed making Gloria go away and the final act was not a immediate reaction upon hearing the news or their move to a residential home. Courts have become more lenient where there has been a time lapse as seen in the cases of R v Pearson and Ahluwalia but a locomotive engine cooling system off period is not a matter of law but a piece of severalize which the jury may use. indeed Fred and Louis would have to rely on cumulative provocation and see if the jury would agree as the classic subjective test of loss of self-control would not apply. Also for the defence to succeed it must be proved that the response was not out of all proportion to the provocation, the ? clean person? test. The cardinal question has been whether a reasonable person can be given particular characteristics of the defendant in assessing whether they would have reacted in the way the defendant did. In a string of cases this was put not to be so, but the jumper lead case is now the House of Lord?s j udiciousness of R v smith where two alcoholics pos! tulated and Smith killed McCullagh. Smith?s defence of depression was allowed as the characteristics of the defendant beyond simply his age or sex could be taken into account. Therefore Fred and louis?s educationally subnormal condition could be taken into account and left to the jury to decide if their actions were reasonable in the face of the provocation. The defence of diminished responsibility under s. 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 was introduced because of problems with the very narrow definition of mania under the M?Naughten Rules. The wider interpretation covers an irregularity of the mind, a state of mind which a reasonable person would consider abnormal. In R v Byrne where an appeal was allowed to a man who kill a cleaning lady and claimed a defence of resistless sexual impulses. The cause of the mental defectiveness must arise from a condition of arrested or developmentally challenged development of mind which could be applied to Fred and Louis in their educationally s ubnormal state. The effect of the abnormality must be such that it substantially impairs the defendants mental responsibility for his acts or omissions with regard to the cleaning which again would encompass Fred and Louis. Therefore we can conclude by saying that Fred and Louis would be liable for the murder for Gloria but they would be able to plead the partial defences of provocation and diminished responsibility which on conviction would leave their sentence to the discretion of the judge. However, if Fred and Louis had agreed that they were definitely not trying to hurt Gloria but to ?scare her away? we would have to consider their liability for involuntary manslaughter as they had the actus reas for murder but not the mens rea. In this scenario they would be liable for creative manslaughter where death is caused by an act, not an omission. To prove constructive manslaughter the act which causes death must be a nefarious offence, in our case Fred pushing Gloria down the sta irs would be classed as barrage by s. 39 of the wic! ked judge Act 1988. The actus reas of battery being the illegitimate application of force on another. Additionally it must be proved that the act was dangerous. In R v Church where a woman died from drowning after an fight the Court of Appeal held that an act could be considered dangerous if there was an intention risk of some suffering resulting from it, this would be easy for the prosecution to prove in our case. specially as this is a strictly subjective test so it does not matter that the accused did not realise that there was a risk of harm from his actions. Also in R v thud where Ball shot his neighbour with give out rounds instead of the boob rounds he thought he?d loaded, it was decided that whether an act was dangerous or not should be decided on a reasonable person?s assessment of the facts, not on what the defendant knew. Finally the unlawful and dangerous act must also cause the death, which it does in our case. Meanwhile the mens rea required for constructive manslaughter is that of the crime constituting the unlawful act which is the battery against Gloria. For battery it can be intention or recklessness as to the application of unlawful force which again would be easily proved against the accused in our case to give a final charge of involuntary manslaughter against Fred and Louis if they could argue successfully that they had intended to just scare Gloria away. BibliographyCriminal Law, Nicola Padfield - 2nd EditionCriminal Law, Catherine Elliott and Frances Quinn - fourth Edition150 Leading Cases Criminal Law - 1st Edition If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
