Andrew's Responsibility for Bettina's Death Bettina, the prosecution would have to establish that Andrew possessed either the intent to kill or the intent to cause grievous bodily harm[1].Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay According to Cokes' definition "The actus reus of murder is that there must be an unlawful killing of a human being[2]" and the actions of the accused, in this case those of Andrews, must be identified as the cause of Bettina's death. To establish this, it must be proven that Andrew's actions were the factual and legal causes of Bettina's death. For factual causation, we must perform the “but for” test: without Andrew’s actions, would Bettina have died? [3]. The facts indicate that Andrew kicked Bettina in the stomach multiple times, causing her to miscarry and internally bleed. Due to internal bleeding from Andrew's injuries, she died the next day. Therefore, by applying the "but for" test, the prosecution could argue that "but for" Andrew's actions, Bettina would not have suffered the injuries that caused her internal bleeding and miscarriage and she would not have not deceased. He actually caused his death. Legal causality would then have to be established. To do this, the prosecution would have to demonstrate that Andrew's actions were the "substantial and operative cause" of Bettina's death.[4] The facts indicate that her internal injuries which led to her internal bleeding were the cause of her death as well as complications from her miscarriage. However, it was Andrews' conduct that caused the injuries that led to his death. According to R v Hennigan, Andrews' actions must not be the sole or primary cause of Bettina's death to satisfy statutory causation.[5] The facts do not mention any novus actus interveniens that could have broken the chain of causation, all we are told is that Bettina called the police as she began to bleed. The prosecution must then establish whether Andrew has the required mens rea for murder, which is intent.[6] Andrew's intentions are unclear from the script, so we have to look at indirect intentions. This would require establishing that while Andrew was kicking Bettina in the stomach, he could foresee that certain consequences, primarily serious bodily harm or death, were "virtually certain" and that he had the intention for the result to occur even if it was not its primary objective.[7] The fact that Andrew kicked Bettina several times in the stomach demonstrates indirect intent on Andrew's part, as he was virtually certain that she would suffer at least serious bodily injury. However, it is important to note that a jury would not always be required to consider foresight of near certainty as evidence of intent.[8] After reviewing this, it can be concluded that the elements of murder are met and a charge can be brought against Andrew. Defenses Andrew may benefit from the partial defense of loss of self-control, under section 54 of the Coroners' Act. 9]. To benefit from this defense, Andrew must establish that Bettina's murder was the result of his loss of self-control and that he had a trigger.[10] He can claim, in accordance with Article 55(4), that because Bettina told him that she was going to have ababy for Crispin and that Crispin was a better lover than Andrew and that after hearing some life-changing news, he came home to find Crispin, his wife's son. lover, at home. This could arguably be characterized as extremely serious circumstances that led Andrew to legitimately feel that he was wrong. However, according to Article 55(6)(c), actions or words spoken in relation to sexual infidelity must be ignored. It is therefore likely that Andrew may not be able to benefit from this defense. However, it can use the precedent set in R v Clinton[11] where it was established that sexual infidelity can be taken into account if it is found that there are other admissible triggers apart from of this one alone. Additionally, to qualify for the defense, Andrew must also establish that a person of his sex and age possessing a normal degree of patience and self-control should react similarly to Bettina's news. But repeatedly kicking him in the stomach is unlikely to be such a person's reaction, and so it is unlikely that he would benefit from this defense. Another defense that Andrew could rely on is the partial defense of diminished responsibility, pursuant to s. 2 of the Homicide Act[12] which was later amended by section 52 of the Homicide Act[13] which relates to accused persons who, at the time of the murder, were suffering from a mental condition recognized that significantly affected their ability to make decisions. To benefit from this defense, Andrew would have to establish that his mental functioning was impaired by a recognized health problem. He could claim that his clinical depression had impaired his mental functioning to the point where he lost all reasonable judgment and ability to exercise self-control, which is why he killed Bettina. In the case of R v Gittens[14], a man who suffered from depression and benefited from the testimony of medical experts had his sentence for murder overturned and replaced with a sentence for manslaughter. To qualify for this defense, Andrew would have to provide substantial medical evidence to satisfy all elements of the defense before it is submitted to the jury.[15] However, uncontested medical evidence would not automatically eliminate a murder charge.[16] murder against Andrew, the AG's reference (No. 3 of 1994)[17] must be taken into account because it analyzes the definition of murder given by coke[18]. This definition states that the murder must involve a human being and it has been concluded that for the fetus to be recognized as a human being, it must be entirely removed from the mother [19]. In this case, the baby died in Bettina's womb and is therefore unlikely to be considered independent of its mother. it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in bringing murder charges against Andrew for the unborn child. However, the prosecution is more likely to succeed if it is a charge of child destruction under sections 1 and 2 of the Preservation of Infants' Lives Act 1929.[20].DefencesAndrew can argue that the child was not capable of being born alive because he could have been less than twenty-eight weeks old, which is the age required for a fetus to make such accusations, but we are not told where the Bettina's pregnancy. Andrew's responsibility for Crispin's death In Crispin's death, the prosecution may consider bringing murder charges against Andrew. As stated previously, they would have to demonstrate that Andrew possessed the actus reus and mens rea for murder. The actus reus for murder is that there has been an unlawful killing of a beinghuman[21], the prosecution would have to demonstrate that Andrews' actions were the cause in fact and in law of Crispin's death. To establish a factual causal link, it would be necessary to determine that “without” Andrew having beaten Crispin to death, he would not have died[22]. The facts indicate that Andrew hit Crispin with an ashtray when he tried to stop Bettina and Andrew from fighting. Due to the blow, a pre-existing aneurysm burst in Crispin's brain, leading to his death. in rv Dyson[23], it was stated that the imminent death of the victim does not absolve the defendant from liability. So even if Crispin was already suffering from an illness that could have killed him, Andrew would still be responsible for his death. To determine legal causation, it would be necessary to establish that Andrew was the operative and substantial cause[24] of Crispin's death. The facts indicate that the aneurysm could have burst at any time if Crispin had suffered physical exertion. Therefore, if Andrew had not instigated the fight with Bettina and hit Crispin in the head with an ashtray, it could be argued that the aneurysm may not have been triggered. Additionally, the thin skull rule established in R v Blaue[25] states that the accused must leave the victim as they found them. Whether Crispin suffered from a pre-existing condition, Andrew is still responsible for his death. The next step would be to determine whether Andrew had the mens rea for the murder, i.e. intent. Crispin's death could be seen by the jury as a natural and probable consequence of Andrew hitting him over the head with an ashtray. Additionally, under section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act[26], the jury is prohibited from applying an objective rather than a subjective test in deciding whether Andrew had intent. This was established in the case of Hancock and Shankland[27] where the murder convictions were overturned because the defendants did not intend to cause death when they dropped the concrete pieces from the bridge to block the road leading to the mine and not cause death. . The convictions were overturned because the possibility of death was not a natural consequence of their actions and this was determined by looking at the evidence from the defendants' perspective. In determining whether Andrew had the requisite intention, it is important to consider the likelihood of the result arising from Andrew's act and whether he foresaw that consequence. The jury would have to determine whether it was virtually certain that death would occur from being struck with an ashtray/that death was a natural consequence of being struck with an ashtray in order to infer intent.[28] However, it could be argued that there is no virtual certainty that if a person is hit with an ashtray they will die. Additionally, there is not enough information about the force exerted or the composition of the material of the ashtray that could have caused serious bodily injury. Therefore, the prosecution should aim to bring a charge of manslaughter, because without intent there can be no murder. For the prosecution to bring a charge of unlawful act manslaughter against Andrew, it must establish all elements of the actus reus. In this case, the death occurred as a result of an illegal act and not an omission[29] and that the illegal act committed constituted a crime[30] in addition to creating a risk of serious harm, but this harm does not have to be as serious as grievous bodily harm. The facts indicate that Andrew hit Crispin in the head with an ashtray, which could constitute an assault causing actual bodily harm[31] and be perceived as a dangerous act. To determine whether Andrew's action constituted actual harm, a test 353

Essay / Andrew's Responsibility for Bettina's Death Bettina, the prosecution would have to establish that Andrew possessed either the intent to kill or the intent to cause grievous bodily harm[1].Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay According to Cokes' definition "The actus reus of murder is that there must be an unlawful killing of a human being[2]" and the actions of the accused, in this case those of Andrews, must be identified as the cause of Bettina's death. To establish this, it must be proven that Andrew's actions were the factual and legal causes of Bettina's death. For factual causation, we must perform the “but for” test: without Andrew’s actions, would Bettina have died? [3]. The facts indicate that Andrew kicked Bettina in the stomach multiple times, causing her to miscarry and internally bleed. Due to internal bleeding from Andrew's injuries, she died the next day. Therefore, by applying the "but for" test, the prosecution could argue that "but for" Andrew's actions, Bettina would not have suffered the injuries that caused her internal bleeding and miscarriage and she would not have not deceased. He actually caused his death. Legal causality would then have to be established. To do this, the prosecution would have to demonstrate that Andrew's actions were the "substantial and operative cause" of Bettina's death.[4] The facts indicate that her internal injuries which led to her internal bleeding were the cause of her death as well as complications from her miscarriage. However, it was Andrews' conduct that caused the injuries that led to his death. According to R v Hennigan, Andrews' actions must not be the sole or primary cause of Bettina's death to satisfy statutory causation.[5] The facts do not mention any novus actus interveniens that could have broken the chain of causation, all we are told is that Bettina called the police as she began to bleed. The prosecution must then establish whether Andrew has the required mens rea for murder, which is intent.[6] Andrew's intentions are unclear from the script, so we have to look at indirect intentions. This would require establishing that while Andrew was kicking Bettina in the stomach, he could foresee that certain consequences, primarily serious bodily harm or death, were "virtually certain" and that he had the intention for the result to occur even if it was not its primary objective.[7] The fact that Andrew kicked Bettina several times in the stomach demonstrates indirect intent on Andrew's part, as he was virtually certain that she would suffer at least serious bodily injury. However, it is important to note that a jury would not always be required to consider foresight of near certainty as evidence of intent.[8] After reviewing this, it can be concluded that the elements of murder are met and a charge can be brought against Andrew. Defenses Andrew may benefit from the partial defense of loss of self-control, under section 54 of the Coroners' Act. 9]. To benefit from this defense, Andrew must establish that Bettina's murder was the result of his loss of self-control and that he had a trigger.[10] He can claim, in accordance with Article 55(4), that because Bettina told him that she was going to have ababy for Crispin and that Crispin was a better lover than Andrew and that after hearing some life-changing news, he came home to find Crispin, his wife's son. lover, at home. This could arguably be characterized as extremely serious circumstances that led Andrew to legitimately feel that he was wrong. However, according to Article 55(6)(c), actions or words spoken in relation to sexual infidelity must be ignored. It is therefore likely that Andrew may not be able to benefit from this defense. However, it can use the precedent set in R v Clinton[11] where it was established that sexual infidelity can be taken into account if it is found that there are other admissible triggers apart from of this one alone. Additionally, to qualify for the defense, Andrew must also establish that a person of his sex and age possessing a normal degree of patience and self-control should react similarly to Bettina's news. But repeatedly kicking him in the stomach is unlikely to be such a person's reaction, and so it is unlikely that he would benefit from this defense. Another defense that Andrew could rely on is the partial defense of diminished responsibility, pursuant to s. 2 of the Homicide Act[12] which was later amended by section 52 of the Homicide Act[13] which relates to accused persons who, at the time of the murder, were suffering from a mental condition recognized that significantly affected their ability to make decisions. To benefit from this defense, Andrew would have to establish that his mental functioning was impaired by a recognized health problem. He could claim that his clinical depression had impaired his mental functioning to the point where he lost all reasonable judgment and ability to exercise self-control, which is why he killed Bettina. In the case of R v Gittens[14], a man who suffered from depression and benefited from the testimony of medical experts had his sentence for murder overturned and replaced with a sentence for manslaughter. To qualify for this defense, Andrew would have to provide substantial medical evidence to satisfy all elements of the defense before it is submitted to the jury.[15] However, uncontested medical evidence would not automatically eliminate a murder charge.[16] murder against Andrew, the AG's reference (No. 3 of 1994)[17] must be taken into account because it analyzes the definition of murder given by coke[18]. This definition states that the murder must involve a human being and it has been concluded that for the fetus to be recognized as a human being, it must be entirely removed from the mother [19]. In this case, the baby died in Bettina's womb and is therefore unlikely to be considered independent of its mother. it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in bringing murder charges against Andrew for the unborn child. However, the prosecution is more likely to succeed if it is a charge of child destruction under sections 1 and 2 of the Preservation of Infants' Lives Act 1929.[20].DefencesAndrew can argue that the child was not capable of being born alive because he could have been less than twenty-eight weeks old, which is the age required for a fetus to make such accusations, but we are not told where the Bettina's pregnancy. Andrew's responsibility for Crispin's death In Crispin's death, the prosecution may consider bringing murder charges against Andrew. As stated previously, they would have to demonstrate that Andrew possessed the actus reus and mens rea for murder. The actus reus for murder is that there has been an unlawful killing of a beinghuman[21], the prosecution would have to demonstrate that Andrews' actions were the cause in fact and in law of Crispin's death. To establish a factual causal link, it would be necessary to determine that “without” Andrew having beaten Crispin to death, he would not have died[22]. The facts indicate that Andrew hit Crispin with an ashtray when he tried to stop Bettina and Andrew from fighting. Due to the blow, a pre-existing aneurysm burst in Crispin's brain, leading to his death. in rv Dyson[23], it was stated that the imminent death of the victim does not absolve the defendant from liability. So even if Crispin was already suffering from an illness that could have killed him, Andrew would still be responsible for his death. To determine legal causation, it would be necessary to establish that Andrew was the operative and substantial cause[24] of Crispin's death. The facts indicate that the aneurysm could have burst at any time if Crispin had suffered physical exertion. Therefore, if Andrew had not instigated the fight with Bettina and hit Crispin in the head with an ashtray, it could be argued that the aneurysm may not have been triggered. Additionally, the thin skull rule established in R v Blaue[25] states that the accused must leave the victim as they found them. Whether Crispin suffered from a pre-existing condition, Andrew is still responsible for his death. The next step would be to determine whether Andrew had the mens rea for the murder, i.e. intent. Crispin's death could be seen by the jury as a natural and probable consequence of Andrew hitting him over the head with an ashtray. Additionally, under section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act[26], the jury is prohibited from applying an objective rather than a subjective test in deciding whether Andrew had intent. This was established in the case of Hancock and Shankland[27] where the murder convictions were overturned because the defendants did not intend to cause death when they dropped the concrete pieces from the bridge to block the road leading to the mine and not cause death. . The convictions were overturned because the possibility of death was not a natural consequence of their actions and this was determined by looking at the evidence from the defendants' perspective. In determining whether Andrew had the requisite intention, it is important to consider the likelihood of the result arising from Andrew's act and whether he foresaw that consequence. The jury would have to determine whether it was virtually certain that death would occur from being struck with an ashtray/that death was a natural consequence of being struck with an ashtray in order to infer intent.[28] However, it could be argued that there is no virtual certainty that if a person is hit with an ashtray they will die. Additionally, there is not enough information about the force exerted or the composition of the material of the ashtray that could have caused serious bodily injury. Therefore, the prosecution should aim to bring a charge of manslaughter, because without intent there can be no murder. For the prosecution to bring a charge of unlawful act manslaughter against Andrew, it must establish all elements of the actus reus. In this case, the death occurred as a result of an illegal act and not an omission[29] and that the illegal act committed constituted a crime[30] in addition to creating a risk of serious harm, but this harm does not have to be as serious as grievous bodily harm. The facts indicate that Andrew hit Crispin in the head with an ashtray, which could constitute an assault causing actual bodily harm[31] and be perceived as a dangerous act. To determine whether Andrew's action constituted actual harm, a test 353

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch