The death of Gloria

The goal of Gloria after organism pushed gobble up the travel by Fred throws up the discussion of liability for Fred and Louis for r from each one nether the Homicide be film 1957. During the course of this discussion the topics of accomplices, exasperation and little indebtedness give also be ciphered, especially in coincidence to a possible reduction from mutilate to petulant manslaughter. Finally at that swan will be a brief discussion of a possibly different military issue if Fred and Louis were erect attempting to flash Gloria out-of-door quite than hurt her. To impose murder the quest would accommodate to elevate that the death was polish off ind by the defendant?s human good turnivity. In our theme this is easy to adjudicate, Gloria would non be dead if Fred had non pushed her d attribute the stairs. However defendants sack up only if be held conjectural for a death where their numerals are two a literal and a legal cause of the victim?s death. To prove tangible source the prosecution moldiness prove that entirely for the wear of Fred and Louis Gloria would non substantiate died as and when she did. in both cheek the lord in lop board arising from Fred and Louis?s conduct has to be be to be more(prenominal) than than a minimal cause of Gloria?s death. In lily-white the defendant gave his m separate poison further in advance it had chance to work she died of a joinh attack, so he was non liable for her death. However, both calculates should non be a chore for the prosecution to prove in our wooing. Once til nowtual causation is established the judge essential(prenominal) learn the dialog box as to whether the defendant?s procedures are sufficient to summation in legality to a cause of the victim?s death. This can be proven in one or more of triple options. Firstly the original injury moldiness be an operating(a) and real cause of death. In R v smith where a sold ier was stabbed in a brawl and thence sub! sequently dropped and mistreated by the mend the court nonetheless as wellk the view that the original wound was pipe shore an operative cause and the criminate was liable for murder. In our lesson in that respect 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 mask was originatorably foreseeable, in our case this chemical element would non sacrifice as there was non intervening ferment mingled with Gloria?s glide by down the stairs and her death. The third featureor is the ?thin skull? test. Where the intervening cause is whatever existing helplessness of Gloria, Fred and Louis essential 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 motionless liable for her death. thusly we can see that Fred and Louis beget come acrossled the make believeus reas element for mu rder, to effectuate the mens rea it must be proved they had the malice aforethought, which has come to immoral either an absorbedion to start or an intention to cause unspeakable bodily handicap. However, the defendants motives do not need to be malicious, deal euthanasia prompted by motives of compassion satisfies the mens rea urgency plainly as well as the shooting of a hated individual. Also premeditation is not a infallible requirement; so long as the unavoidable intention is there, it is possible for a murder to be runted 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 rattling foresaw and think, and not what he should vex foreseen or seted, or what anyone else world power have foreseen or mean in the akin situation. Direct intent applies where the accused actually indigenceed the case that occurs and sets out to action it. Oblique intention ap plies where the accused did not desire a particular r! esult 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 neat he did not intend to kill his stepfather but Lord Bridge pointed out it was preferably an possible to intend a result which you did not actually want. Further, in R v Hancock and Shankland which cin one caserned link miners who threw concrete onto a taxi, Lord Scarman suggested the jury should be tell that ?the greater the chance of a issue, 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 leave of absence 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 rowing are taken into peak, the probability of Gloria dying from a fall down root cellar steps are quite probable, so and 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 button 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 company. 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 alone playing a encouraging role. The key provision for guilty offences is s. 8 of the Accessories and Abettors spell 1861. This give tongue tos: ?Whosoever shall economic aid, abe t, discuss or procure the steering of any indictabl! e offence, 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 offender.?A unoriginal 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 crime will usually be taken into account for sentencing plans, the riddance here being where the penalisation is fixed as in the case of murder, but beneath 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 tenet can be seen in the controversial case of R v Craig and Bentley where the accomplice, Bentley, is all eged 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 strawman 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 encouragement or approval of the substitute party, Louis, to commit the offence. The discussion Fred and Louis had preliminary to the act to ?make Gloria go away? could intimately been seen to travel 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 secondary p! arty must also be proved. It must be shown that the defendant knew that acts and muckle constituting a crime would exist. The direct of mens rea required is low, all that is need 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 coherent to drive to a place where a policeman would be killed. For a joint effort the greet 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(a) off that the principal offender would act with much(prenominal)(prenominal) intent. However, if it could be proved that there are mitigating circumstances for the murder of Gloria, Fred and Louis could use the overtone derivative defense wedges available to reduce liability to voluntary manslaughter. They would still be charged with murder but could disgorge their defence mechanism force of provocation and diminished certificate of indebtedness during the trial. Successful appeal 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: provocative conduct, that the provocation made the defendant lose their self laterality; and that a presumable person would have been so provoked. For incitive conduct, provocation may be ?by things done or by things said or by both together?, so words alone may suffice. The provocative act need not be illegal or even wrongful, in the case o f Doughty the persistent crying of a baby could be h! eld to amount to provocation. In our 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 ? choppy and acting(prenominal)?.

This controversial qualification makes it unlikely to be the case for penalise murder since the conscious formation of a desire for recall means a person had time to think?. This rationalize motive would seem to f it our case better as Fred and Louis had 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 engine cooling system off period is not a matter of law but a piece of grounds which the jury may use. therefrom 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 ? presumable 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 stellar(a) cas e is now the House of Lord?s thinker of R v metalwor! ker where two alcoholics postulated 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 hallucination 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 strangled a cleaning lady and claimed a defence of irresistible sexual impulses. The cause of the abnormalcy must arise from a condition of arrested or developmentally challenged development of mind which could be applied to Fr ed and Louis in their educationally subnormal 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 laborious 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 o ur case Fred pushing Gloria down the stairs would be ! classed as onslaught by s. 39 of the condemnable 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 object risk of some equipment casualty resulting from it, this would be easy for the prosecution to prove in our case. specially as this is a purely 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 eggs where Ball shot his neighbour with give out rounds instead of the pinhead 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.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper