Saturday, September 28, 2019
A discussion of homicide
A discussion of homicide Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service . You can view samples of our professional work here . A discussion of homicide Under the facts of the scenario, Vincent had died and this would warrant a discussion of homicide. The actus reus of homicide is the unlawful killing of another. It would be unlikely that the parties concerned would be liable for murder as it seems they do not have requisite mens rea of malice aforethought for the offence. Criminal Liability Of Flavia. If Flavia is charged with constructive manslaughter, the prosecution would have to show an unlawful act which is also dangerous, caused the death of Vincent. The prosecution would be likely to rely on s23 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 where the unlawful act is administering a noxious thing; which was successfully argued in Cato. Previous case law on manslaughter and drug supply cases has been far from consistent, but the House of Lords (HL) decision of Kennedy (No 2) was held by Ormerod as a ââ¬Ëmost welcomed conclusionââ¬â¢ to the drug-supply case law. In the case it was stated that where a vi ctim of a sound mind injected himself as a result of ââ¬Ëfree, voluntary and informed decisionââ¬â¢ this would break the chain of causation. In the scenario it is stated that ââ¬ËVincent injects himselfââ¬â¢, we can safely assume that Flavia had not administered the injection directly and it was a ââ¬Ëfree, voluntary and informed decisionââ¬â¢ made by Vincent which breaks the chain of causation. It must also be presumed that factors such as age, mental conditions or improper pressure have not affected the decision of Vincent to self-inject, if they had, Flavia could be liable; which is more likely as he is at a party. If Vincent was an addict, Clarkson would question whether taking drugs would be ââ¬Ëfree and voluntaryââ¬â¢. In Kennedy (No 2) it was stated that, in relation to the scenario, that the ââ¬Ëact of supplying the drugs by [Flavia], without more, could not harm [Vincent] in any psychical way, let alone cause his deathââ¬â¢. HL did not rule out scenario where two people are ââ¬Ëacting togetherââ¬â¢. This left open a ââ¬Ënarrow circumstancesââ¬â¢ which Flavia would be liable for death of Vincent, apart from where there is direct injection to the deceased. In the scenario, Flavia used her belt as tourniquet to lift a vein and this was similar to the case of Rogers (where the defendant was convicted). But this was specifically stated as ââ¬Ëwrongly decidedââ¬â¢ by Lord Bingham and we can assume that this would not amount to ââ¬Ëacting togetherââ¬â¢. Additionally Kennedy (No 2) also stated; preparation and handing the syringe to victim will not constitute ââ¬Ëacting togetherââ¬â¢ to give rise to liability for the death of Vincent. Lord Bingham stated ââ¬Ënothing in this opinion should be understood as applying to manslaughter caused by negligenceââ¬â¢. Therefore we may be able to argue that Flavia is liable for gross negligence manslaughter for the death of Vincent. It is more likely that F lavia would be charged with gross negligence manslaughter, prosecution would have to prove the criteria laid down by Lord Mackay in the case of Adamako (which applies to all gross negligence cases). It would first of all need to be established that the defendant owed a duty of care to victim and the defendant breached that duty of care and this caused the death of Vincent. The breach of duty must be characterised as grossly negligent to constitute a crime; a matter for the jury to decide on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.