Saturday 28 April 2007

Criminal -> Murder, Causation and Manslaughter

Murder defined as: The unlawful killing of another person in the Queens peace.
With an intention to cause death of grievous bodily harm to the victim a person convicted of murder must be given a sentence of life imprisonment.

Causation is an assumption that each person is responsible for his/her actions and that act caused a particular consequence i.e. in murder the actions of the accused caused the death of the victim. Has to be the factual cause of death as seen in R v White: defendant put poison into victims drink but victim suffered a heart attack after a few sips, but medical evidence suggested the heart attack was unrelated to the poison. The victim would have died in the same way had the defendant not put poison in his drink therefore this is NOT the factual cause of death.
You have to apply the ‘But for’ test to determine factual causation: But for the defendants act the result would not have occurred.
In order to establish legal causation:
Substantial cause. The defendants act must be a substantial cause of the result and not merely a slight or trifling link (Kimsey [1996]). A stabs B in the leg and then C shoots B. Medical evidence will show B died of the gun shot wound and not the stab wound.
Operating cause. The defendants act must be an operating cause of the result. A stabs B and then C shoots B dead. B’s shooting would break the chain of causation and A would no longer be responsible for B’s death but may still be liable for the stabbing. (R v Pagette; def used gf as a human shield and shot a police officer, who then fired back killing the gf. Pagette caused them to return fire there4 the legal cause of death.)

In the even of a break in the chain of causation (novus actus interveniens) where A injured B and then C inflicted further harm after which the victim died. Four different verdicts could be reached by the court:
(i) if the evidence indicates the victim died as a combination of both injuries, A & C both liable for B’s death.
(ii) It could be found that C’s act was a novus actus so A’s no longer said to have caused the death but C would (R v Cheshire).
(iii) If C’s act was of negligible effect then it may be found that A caused the death and not C.
(iv) It may also be found that neither of the acts caused the death, i.e. victim died of heart attack or something else unconnected with the injuries inflicted by A & C (R v White).

Intention equals the most blame-worth state of mind. Hyam v DPP suggested if a result is foreseen as likely then it is intended. However HoL made it clear that foresight of a consequence is not the same as intention therefore intention was the fault element rather than foresight in murder and therefore should be given its normal ordinary meaning (R v Moloney).

The Woollin directive on establishing defendants intention. Was it the result of the defendants purpose? If yes, then he obviously intended it. If not then, was the result a virtually certain result of his action and did the defendant realize that the result was virtually certain result of his actions? If yes then the jury are entitled to find he intended the result. If not he did not intend the result.
The Eggshell Skull rule (or thin-skull rule) holds an individual liable for all consequences resulting from their activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers unusual damages due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition. The general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victim as they find them".

Manslaughter is slightly less serious form of homicide than murder. There are two types of manslaughter:
(1) Voluntary manslaughter. These are killings which would be murder but for the existence of defined extenuating circumstances. Although they had the actus rea and mens rea he or she does not deserve the label ‘murderer’.
(2) Involuntary manslaughter. These are killings where the defendant does not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm but there’s sufficient fault to justify criminal liability.

Direct Intention. The defendant has direct intention to kill if it was his primary purpose to cause death.
Oblique Intention. Death is a virtually certain consequence of the attainment of the defendants primary purpose. (R v Woollin).

Express Malice: Intention to kill
Implied Malice: Intention to cause GBH.

HOMICIDE AND CAUSATION ANSWER STRUCTURE

  1. Define factual (White) and legal (Cheshire) causation.
  2. Consider whether factual causation is satisfied for all victims.
  3. Deal with causation first for each victim i.e. was D’s act the significant and operative cause of V death.
  4. Consider novus actus intervenes, was each link of causation reasonably foreseeable consequence of D’s original act. Any unforeseeable acts by 3rd parties.
  5. For each victim where causation is established, go on to consider whether its murder or manslaughter as the appropriate charge. Define Murder/UAM/GBH at this stage.
  6. Murder or manslaughter will depend on Mens Rea of D. Don’t forget to apply Wollin where appropriate, nor forget to look at GNM as an alternative to UAM where appropriate.

Friday 20 April 2007

Legal Terminology

Word(s)

Definition

Stare decisis

To stand by a past decision

Res judicata

Latin for "the thing has been judged," meaning the issue before the court has already been decided by another court, between the same parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless.

Ex parte [or ex p]

In UK legal doctrine it means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. On behalf of only one party, without notice to any other party. For example, a request for a search warrant is an ex parte proceeding, since the person subject to the search is not notified of the proceeding and is not present at the hearing.

Inter Alia

Latin term for among other things. It is a phrase used in legal proceedings that few facts stated are only part of the entire facts or rules and not the entire thing.

Prima facie

It is a latin word meaning "At first sight or glance" or "on its face". In common law, it is referred to the first piece of evidence or fact that is considered true unless revoked or contradicted .

Citation

It is an act of referring to previous court decisions, statutes and legal books on the basis of which the present trial can be based.


There seems to be a lot of latin phrases used in law... sometimes its like a whole other language... kinda like techi talk... with all their jargon... blogs, email, php, etc... we have law jargon. It'll take time but you'll get used to it.

The English Court Structure

The modern organization of the courts began with the Judicature Act of 1873 and has continued through the Courts Act of 1971. Currently, the court structure is as follows:

  • House of Lords: The supreme court of appeal for civil cases in UK and criminal cases outside Scotland.
  • Privy Council: An appellate court which derives jurisdiction from the right of all the monarch's subjects to appeal to the Crown for redress.
Supreme Court Judicature:
  1. Court of Appeal: This court has two divisions; Civil and Criminal and both hear appeals from the High Court.
  2. High Court: This court has three division, Queen's (or king's) Bench, Chancery, and Family (formerly probate). Also note that there are divisional courts under each division.
  3. Crown Court: A criminal court with general jurisdiction. Handles most of the serious criminal cases.
Cases from the courts listed above are widely reported in the various reporters.
  • County Courts/Magistrates Courts: These 'inferior' courts are not widely reported but do handle the bulk of the case load. Civil actions heard by County courts, criminal and civil actions by Magistrates courts.

Wednesday 18 April 2007

Introduction

To the Reader of this blog,
My salutations. This is my blog of being a law student... being new to the field, I come from an IT background... which is what i did my previous degree in... but i then decided to jump ship and do a law degree. Why? Well... theres the real reason and the reason i tell everyone else. I'll tell you BOTH... since its a lot more amusing that way. The reason i give everyone who asked is:

"Well, I got a bullshit parking ticket. I went to court, I got the traffic warden on the stand, and I argued with him until he admitted he was wrong. And the judge, this Judge Malloy. All the while he's laughing and smiling. And then afterwards, he asks me to go to lunch with him. Then he says to me, "you know what? You'd be a good litigator." I didn't know what the hell he was talking about, I don't know what a litigator is. I never thought of becoming a lawyer. But this Judge Malloy, who's from Manchester, too? He did it, so all of a sudden, it seemed possible. So I went to law school. "

For all those who've caught on... yes thats a line from the movie 'My Cousin Vinny' ... hilarious movie... one of my personal favs. But the real reason... ah... yes.... the real reason goes a little something like this:

"Ever since I was a kid I wanted to be a superhero... like in the cartoons... but then i found out (much to my dismay) that the chances of that were next to nil... so naturally I then wanted to go into Law Enforcement... aka... being a cop... only later did I realise although I got to arrest the bad guys, i didnt get to put them away... that was the job of the lawyer... so i went to law school".

Whatever your reasons are they better NOT be 'because of a girl, or a guy... or because your parents want you to' ... that is a BULLSHIT reason and I will hurt anyone who uses it... lol kiddin. Just enjoy what you do people, we dont get this time back.

Anyway the purpose of this blog is simply to post up my revision notes for the main six areas of law: Public, Tort, Contract, Land, Equity & Criminal. For the sake of time im only gonna post up the areas im gonna revise for each topic... so dont be surprised if i miss out a few things.

Lets see how it goes.