Evaluation of Muder and Manslaughter

...

The final tier is Manslaughter where the defendant causes death by gross negligence; a criminal act intended to cause injury, or in the awareness of a serious risk that injury may be caused. This three - tier system has been introduced as a result of the two-tier structure no longer being able to meet the increasing demands being made of it. It is because of the mandatory life sentence for murder that the Homicide Act, 1957 set out special defences such as diminished responsibility and loss of control (provocation). These defences allow the judge flexibility when passing a sentence, which he doesn’t have when a defendant is convicted of Murder.

Intention to commit a murder is another primary issue is law and it can be split into direct intention, where the defendant desires the result and sets about achieving it and oblique intention, where the defendant desired the Act but not the consequences that followed. – changed too much, difficult for jury.

The House of Lords has attempted to explain what effect the foresight of consequences has. In the case of Moloney, the defendant shot and killed his stepfather. It was found that the two had a good relationship and had been celebrating the defendant's grandparents’ ruby wedding anniversary. The two had already had a lot to drink but stayed up drinking. The defendant told his step -father that he wanted to leave the army. The stepfather was not happy and He told him he could load, draw and shoot a gun quicker than him and told him to get the guns. The defendant returned with two guns and took the challenge. The defendant was first to load and draw and the stepfather said, "I don't think you have got the guts but if you have pull the trigger". The defendant pulled the trigger but because he was drunk he didn’t know the gun was aimed at the stepfather. The trial judge directed on oblique intent and the jury convicted, the defendant's conviction for murder was substituted for manslaughter in the House of Lords. It was not a case of oblique intent and the judge should not have issued a direction relating to further expansion of intention. In this case it was ruled that foresight of consequences was not intention; it was only evidence which intent could be inferred from.

Lord Bridge stated that "The golden rule should be that, when directing a jury on the mental element necessary in a crime of specific intent, the judge should avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent, and leave it to the jury's good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent, unless the judge is convinced that, on the facts and having regard to the way the case has been presented to the jury in evidence and argument, some further explanation or elaboration is strictly necessary to avoid misunderstanding." Lord Bridge also gave guidance on the approach for the test on oblique intent: "In the rare cases in which it is necessary to direct a jury by reference to foresight of consequences, I do not believe it is necessary for the judge to do more than invite the jury to consider two questions. First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequence."

On the other hand, the case of Woollin demonstrates oblique intention where the defendant threw his 3-month-old baby at a pram, in a rage of frustration after shaking it. However, the baby hit the wall instead and suffered a fractured skull so died. The trial judge directed the jury that if they were satisfied the defendant "must have realized and appreciated when he threw that child that there was a substantial risk that he would cause serious injury to it, then it would be open to you to find that he intended to cause injury to the child and you should convict him of murder." The jury convicted of murder and also rejected the defense of provocation. The defendant appealed on the grounds that in referring to 'substantial risk' the judge had widen the definition of murder and should have referred to virtual certainty in accordance with Nedrick guidance. In this case the Virtual certainty test was established where a judge could give guides to the jury and ask was death or serious injury a virtual certainty? In Woollin, The House of Lords stated that intention can be found from foresight of consequences, which had made the law uncertain, and there is no clear rule. In Mattews and alleyne the Court of Appeal even said that there was little to choose between a rule of evidence and one of sustentative law, which made it even more unclear and uncertain. However, the issue of whether foresight of virtual consequences did in fact equal intent or being evidence of intention was resolved in the favour of evidence although this was not proof.

Nedrick is another case illustration where the defendant had a grudge against the victim and He poured paraffin through her letterbox and set it alight in the middle of the night. A child died as a result of the fire. In the Court, the judge directed the jury as follows: "If when the accused performed the act of setting fire to the house, he knew that it was highly probable that the act would result in serious bodily injury to somebody inside the house, even though he did not desire it - desire to bring that result about - he is guilty or murder." The jury used this direction and convicted Nedrick of murder, the defendant appealed on the grounds of a miss-direction. The Court of Appeal found there was a clear misdirection.

The Government rejected the Law Commissions’ proposal for the reformation of the law on murder to modify it to become this two-tier offence. The Government only accepted that reforms were needed in the area of self-defence so that individuals who had to exert excessive force for defensive reasons would have a defence in court. This reform was then implemented as part of the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009 where there is now a defence of loss of control. In other words, if the defendant has a fear of serious violence, they will have a defence of loss of control due to this fear. If this defence is accepted in court then the charge of Murder can be reduced to Manslaughter. This would allow cases such as Martin, 2002 to have a partial defence for their actions. However, they would need to prove that they ‘lost control’ as a result of a fear of violence.

Euthanasia

There