Criminal Law Master Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Criminal legality Master - Case Study ExampleThe physical elements atomic number 18 collectively called the actus reus and the accompanied mental state is called the mens rea.It is the unplumbed duty of the prosecution to prove both of these elements of the offence to the satisfaction of the judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such cogent evidence the defendant will be acquitted. (http//www.lawteacher.net/Actus%20Reus%20Lecture.php ) To illustrate it in a better manner, in an English case, however, where a man ran at his mistress to hit her and the women jumped protrude of the window and thus met her death, it was held that the jumping out of the window was contrisolelyed to by the appellants unlawful act and on that ground alone a verdict of murder capability well have been returned but it was mercifully reduced to manslaughter.(R. v. Curley (1909) 2 Cr App R 109) Criminal Intention and the knowledge of the probable consequences of the act committed are im portant to prove in order to bring an action under homicide or murder. Where a person had an altercation with his wife in the street out of doors their home during which he struck her and she fell unconscious and in his trial to drag her away in that state caused a fatal injury, he was convicted of manslaughter. It was intractable by the court that the defendant cannot be set free as it can be said initially the intention was not there but later on the subsequent action that caused the fatal injury was done to conceal the commission of the unlawful assault.(R. v. Leburn,(1991) 3 WLR 653(CA) The Court of Appeal has laid downward in R. v. Nedrick that knowledge or foresight of the probable consequences of an act cannot take the place of intention.(1986)3 All ER 1 CA) It can be said that iniquitous homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or it is done with the intention of causing such tangible injury as the wrongdo er knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary gradation of nature to cause death, or if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently weighty that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any free for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. According to the Homicide Act 1957 s.1 Where a person kills another in the course or nurtureance of some other offence, the killing shall not amount to murder unless done with the same malice aforethought (express or implied) as is mandatory for a killing to amount to murder when not done in the course or furtherance of another offence. Throughout English Criminal Law it is the duty of prosecution to prove the accuseds guilt. In every char ge of murder, if the prosecution have proved homicide, namely, the killing by the accused, the prosecution must prove further that the killing was malicious and murder, as there is no presumption that the act was