The Need for Reform of the Law Flashcards
in which 2009 report did the Law Commission point out that there were many problems with the law on murder?
Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide
In the 2009 report ‘Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide ‘ what did the Law Commission point out that there were many problems with?
the law on murder
What are two general problems on the law on murder which the Law Commission identified in its 2009 report on ‘Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide’?
- Many rules have remained unaltered from the 17th century
- uncertain content from constant change
what are the 5 problems set out by the Law Commission in its 2009 report on ‘Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide’?
- Law has only developed bit by bit, not as a coherent whole
- D can be convicted on murder even though he only intended serious harm
- no defence available for excessive force in self defence
- Defence of duress not available for murder
- mandatory life sentences does not cover the wide variety of blameworthiness in current law of murder
What is one of the main areas of where the bit by bit development of courts has caused problems?
with the development of ‘intention’
Which section of which Act tried to make the law clear on the point that the bit by bit development of courts has caused problems on ‘intention’?
s..8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967
What are the main problems in law with ? (1)
foresight of consequences
Who have tried on many occasions to explain the effect of foresight of consequences?
The House of Lords
In what case was it ruled that foresight of consequences are not intention; it was only evidence of which intention could be inferred?
Moloney 1985
What did the case of Moloney 1985 rule on the foresight of consequences?
that foresight of consequences was not intention, it was only evidence from which evidence could be inferred.
The later decision in which case did the HOL speak about intention being found from foresight of consequences making the law uncertain?
Woollin 1998
In the case of Woollin 1998 why did the HOL speak about intention being found from foresight of consequences as making the law uncertain?
as it is not clear whether there is a substantive rule of criminal law that foresight of consequences is intention, or if there is only a rule of evidence that intention can be found from foresight of consequences
What did the COA say in Matthews and Alledyne 2003 which reflects that the law on foresight of consequences is unclear?
they said that there was little to choose between a rule of evidence and one of substantive law.
What has the Law Commission in its repot ‘Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide’ pointed out about Parliaments intentions when it passed the Homicide Act 1957?
that it never intended a killing to amount to murder unless D realised that his or her conduct might cause death
Under the present law of murder, when can a defendant be guilty?
if they intended to cause GBH which leads to death or murder
What does the Law Commission give an example of to defend death by one punch?
they say that most people would not describe a punch as serious harm, and therefore D should not receive a mandatory life sentence for it
Regarding the serious harm leading to death rule, from what case/year have judges pointed out the problem?
Cunningham 1981
What did Lord Edmund Davis from the HOL say in regards to the case of Cunningham 1981?
that he thought the mens rea for murder should be limited to intention to kill
Although Lord Edmund Davis from the HOL said in regards to the case of Cunningham 1981 that he thought the mens rea for murder should be limited to the intention to kill, what did he believe?
that changes to the law should only be made by Parliament
Why did Lord Edmund David from the HOL in the case of Cunningham 1981 believe that only Parliament should make changes to law regardless of the fact that he thought that the mens rea for murder should be limited to the intention to kill?
as the law had been the same for 200 years and it would therefore be wrong for judges to change such a well established law
When can a defendant not be guilty of murder regarding self defence or prevention of crime?
if D can prove that he used reasonable force in self defence or prevention of crime
When can D be guilty of murder when using self defence?
when force is necessary but D has used excessive force in the circumstances