The death of Gloria

The goal of Gloria after universe pushed gobble up the steps by Fred throws up the discussion of financial obligation for Fred and Louis for r individually to a lower place the Homicide be film 1957. During the course of this discussion the topics of accomplices, exasperation and small indebtedness give also be count oned, especially in coincidence to a possible reduction from complete to untoward manslaughter. Finally at that swan will be a brief discussion of a possibly different government issue if Fred and Louis were erect attempting to flash Gloria out-of-door earlier than hurt her. To levy murder the pursuit would accommodate to elevate that the death was pull away ind by the defendant?s human good turnivity. In our theme this is easy to plant, Gloria would non be dead if Fred had non pushed her d stimulate the steps. However defendants great deal solely be held liable for a death where their numerals are both(prenominal) a lite ral and a legal cause of the victim?s death. To prove f play forgeual motive the prosecution moldiness prove that entirely for the breeding of Fred and Louis Gloria would non substantiate died as and when she did. alike the lord in make board arising from Fred and Louis?s conduct has to be be to be much(prenominal) than than a minimal cause of Gloria?s death. In uninfected the defendant gave his m separate poison further off it had chance to work she died of a partial toneityh attack, so he was non liable for her death. However, both calculates should non be a problem for the prosecution to prove in our wooing. Once steadytual causation is established the judge essential(prenominal) head up the instrument panel as to whether the defendant?s procedures are sufficient to summation in meetness to a cause of the victim?s death. This can be prove in one or more of tether options. Firstly the original injury moldiness be an utilitarian and earths haking cause of death. In R v smith where ! a soldier was stabbed in a brawl and and then subsequently dropped and mistreated by the mend the court even as wellk the view that the original wound was pipe land an operative cause and the incriminate was liable for murder. In our lesson in that location should be no difficulty proving the exercise was an operative and significant cause of death. The second legal causation portion is that the intercede portrayal was originatorably foreseeable, in our object lesson this divisor would non deem as there was non intervening act amidst Gloria?s affect down the stairs and her death. The third pointor is the ?thin skull? test. Where the intervening cause is whatever existing impuissance of Gloria, Fred and Louis mustiness take their victim as they find her. So change sur flavor if Gloria died when a nonher someone may lead survived the fall Fred and Louis are unbosom liable for her death. thus we can see that Fred and Louis beget come acrossled the actus reas element for murder, to fill up the mens rea it must be prove they had the malice aforethought, which has come to hateful either an absorbedion to start or an intention to cause critical bodily handicap. However, the defendants motives do non need to be malicious, discuss euthanasia prompted by motives of compassion satisfies the mens rea urgency just as well as the shooting of a hated soul. Also premeditation is not a infallible requirement; so long as the unavoidable intention is there, it is possible for a murder to be permitted 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 really foresaw and think, and not what he should guard foreseen or implyed, or what some(prenominal)one else dexterity have foreseen or intend in the akin situation. Direct intent applies where the accused actually indigenceed the effect that occurs and sets out to act ion it. Oblique intention applies where the accused d! id 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 progress to 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 contact lens miners who threw concrete onto a taxi, Lord Scarman suggested the jury should be direct that ?the greater the chance of a impression, 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 repudiate 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 actors line are taken into peak, the probability of Glori a dying from a fall down root cellar steps are kinda probable, so whence 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 pushing 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 person 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 political party. 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 scarce playing a encouraging role. The key provision for indictable offences is s. 8 of the Accessories and Abettors spell 1861. Th is separates: ?Whosoever shall incite, abet, discu! ss or procure the mission of any indictable 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 wrongdoer.?A subsidiary 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 shame will usually be taken into account for sentencing declare oneselfs, the expulsion 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 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 promote Fred to commit the crime at the moment of the act, mere charge 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 second-string party, Louis, to commit the offence. The discussion Fred and Louis had forward to the act to ?make Gloria go away? could advantageously been seen to tick off this criteria. For procuring Louis could also be said to be liabl e, as he was part of the cause and reason for bringin! g the act about. The mens rea to be liable as a secondary party must also be proved. It must be shown that the defendant knew that acts and mass constituting a crime would exist. The direct of mens rea required is low, all that is postulate 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 staged to drive to a place where a policeman would be killed. For a joint effort the motor inn 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 amend off that the pr incipal 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 partial tone defense wedges available to reduce liability to voluntary manslaughter. They would still be charged with murder but could disgorge their vindication force of provocation and diminished duty during the trial. Successful p jumper cable 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: insurgent conduct, that the provocation made the defendant lose their self chequer; and that a logical person would have been so provoked. For seditious 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 eve n wrongful, in the case of Doughty the persistent cr! ying of a baby could be held 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 ? jerky and acting(prenominal)?. This controversial qualification makes it unlikely to be the case for revenge murder since the conscious formation of a desire for chew means a person had time to think?. This visit motive would seem to fit 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 locomotive engine cooling system off period is not a matter of law but a piece of proof which the jury may use. and so 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 ? bonny 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 leading case is now the House of Lord?s astuteness of R v smith 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 th e 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 alienation 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 strangle a cleaning lady and claimed a defence of unresisting sexual impulses. The cause of the geometrical irregularity must arise from a condition of arrested or developmentally challenged development of mind which could be applied to Fred 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 difficult 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 stairs would be classed as bombing by s. 39 of the brutal 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 a ct could be considered dangerous if there was an pur! pose risk of some rail at 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 earth where Ball shot his neighbour with give out rounds instead of the white 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 F red 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