Criminal Law Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Criminal Law Assignment - Essay Example (Woolmington v. DPP)1 It is important to mention that for any offence to be proved it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Another important point that needs to be raised is that the actus reus and mens rea of the offence must coincide, however a broad approach int his respect has been adopted by the courts. The main elements required to prove an offence are actus reus, mens rea and the absence of any defence. (Lord Diplock in R v Miller)2 The actus reus and mens rea need to coincide, however the requirement is interpreted broadly. (Fagan v. Commissioner of Police3) One of the situation is where the conduct of the defendant created a situation of danger. (R v. Miller)4 The first point of homicide is murder. The actus reus of murder was provided by Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century whereby he stated that the act is committed if the defendant ‘unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queenâ€⠄¢s peace’. The definition of unlawfully does not include the killing of for example the use of reasonable force for self defence (Re a (Children)5. Clearly, Alice died because of the Barry punched her really hard on her head and therefore this is unlawful. As far as killeth is concerned that refers to the requirement that the acts of the defendant can be attributed to be a legal cause of death. Clearly the act of Barry had led to the death of Alice. As far as killing of the reasonable creature in rerum natura is concerned it means that a human life is taken. Clearly this is satisfied as Alice had died. Finally Queen’s peace means that it must have been within England and not the killing of an enemy at war. It can be assumed that Alice’s death occurred in England. Therefore on the facts the actus reus of murder has been satisfied. The next element is that of mens rea of murder which has been termed as ‘malice aforethought’. However, to be precise th e mens rea is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (Moloney)6 Intention discussed in Woollin and applied by Matthwes and Alleyne7 was described as defendants aim or purpose was to kill or cause grievous bodily harm or he know of such harm as being a virtually certain consequence of such an act, and any level below that of virtual certainty would not suffice. On the facts it is more than evident that Barry clearly did not possess the intention nor was he virtually certain of the consequences. Thus it is quite clear that the mens rea for murder is not satisfied. As far as voluntary manslaughter is concerned it is not relevant to the facts at hand as there was neither provocation or was there any diminished responsibility. Thus voluntary manslaughter in respect of the facts will not be argued. The next step is that of involuntary manslaughter. The first manslaughter that would be considered is that of reckless manslaughter. The change brought about by Moloney means that for manslaughter recklessness will suffice. However, on the facts it can be said that Barry was not subjectively reckless as he was not aware of the fact that Alice had an exceptionally thin skull. The next in line is gross negligence manslaughter which requires proof of a high degree of negligence. The approach can be seen from Lord Atkin’s judgment in Andrews v. DPP8 where he stated ‘[In the older cases] expressions will be found which indicate that to cause death by any lack of due care will amount to