Related Papers
The Modern Law Review
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER IN ITS PROCEDURAL CONTEXT1
1976 •
David Farrier
Singapore journal of legal studies
Murder without an Intention to Kill
2004 •
Victor V. Ramraj
On an objective interpretation of section 300(c) of the Penal Code, an offender may be convicted of murder, and the death penalty imposed, if he or she intentionally inflicts even a minor injury, which happens to cause death. This article defends the view that the objective approach is indefensible both legally and theoretically, and offers in its place a qualified subjective approach, which imposes liability under section 300(c) only where the offender intends to inflict what is subjectively known to be a serious injury that might possibly cause death.
Manslaughter under the Griffith Code: Rowing not so gently down two streams of law
Lindy Willmott, Ben White, Andrew Garwood-Gowers
This article considers the two streams of law that can lead to a conviction for manslaughter under the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The first stream deals with acts or conduct that cause another's death in circ*mstances where that death is not an accident, while the second covers those deaths caused by criminal negligence. The article considers how the two streams of law interrelate and, in particular, the extent to which both are available in the same case. Some of the inconsistencies identified by judges in relation to these streams of law are considered and possible solutions are canvassed.
Dublin University Law Journal, volume 37, forthcoming
Gross negligence manslaughter in Irish law
2014 •
David Prendergast
The High Court of Ireland has recently rejected the claim that gross negligence manslaughter is an unconstitutionally vague offence. This note will attempt to explain how the offence is undeniably vague and yet may be constitutionally acceptable by reference to legality principles. This explanation observes the unusual nature of gross negligence manslaughter as a serious offence that typically arises from lawful activity and explores the offence’s relationship with the legality principles of fair notice and restraint of arbitrary power. The note will claim, first, that fair notice is not vitiated by gross negligence manslaughter since people already know that they must avoid causing death and have no legitimate interest in causing death non-negligently or merely negligently. Second, the fact that an ad hoc constituted jury decides gross negligence manslaughter goes towards alleviating concerns about arbitrary power.
Securing a Conviction in 'Crossfire' Killings: Legal Precision vs. Policy
Atli Stannard
Fault Elements In Murder – A Summary Of Australian Law: Draft Memorandum to Jeremy Horder, Law Commissioner
2005 •
Ian Leader-Elliott
Journal of Law and Politics
Culpable Homicide and the Provocation Defence in English Law: An Historical and Contemporary Analysis
2009 •
George Mousourakis (Professor Dr.)
Following an examination of the distinction between murder and manslaughter and its history, this paper discusses the origins of the provocation defence and the main problems surrounding its application in modern law. Although the paper draws largely upon the doctrine of provocation as it operates in English law, it is hoped that the analysis offered has relevance to all systems where similar defences are recognized(or proposed to be introduced), and can make a useful contribution to the continuing moral debate that the partial defences to murder generate.
The Current State of Murder in English Law: A Critique, Wrong Turns and All
John J Child, George Sullivan
In chapter four, ‘The current state of murder in English law: a critique, wrong turns and all’, Dr J.J. Child and Professor G.R. Sullivan explore the offence of murder in the context of its uniquely draconian mandatory sentence. The chapter highlights the normative restraints that such a sentence imposes; criticising the current law for its failure to maintain a narrow definition. In Part 1, the authors discuss the primary route to murder liability, where a defendant (D1) acts as a principal agent, highlighting the inappropriate breadth of current mens rea requirements in particular. In Part 2, discussion switches to the secondary route to murder liability, where D2 commits murder as the accomplice of D1. Focusing upon the recent landmark Supreme Court case of Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, the authors discuss and generally welcome the court’s ambition to narrow accomplice liability in murder to require something approaching a parity of culpability between D1 and D2. However, they also highlight conflicts and uncertainties within the judgment that threaten to undermine its potential in narrowing liability, including (a) uncertainty as to whether D2 must intend D1 to commit murder, (b) the use of conditional intention, and (c) assumptions around manslaughter as an alternative or back-up to murder. Across these alternative routes to murder liability, the chapter contends that liability should be interpreted narrowly and consistently and offers some guidance on associated reform.
Manitoba Law Journal
R v Creighton Twenty Years Later: Harm Versus Death Revisited
2013 •
Amar Khoday
This article revisits the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v Creighton which holds that the requisite mens rea or fault standard for unlawful act manslaughter is objective foresight of bodily harm than is neither trivial nor transient. The article contends, drawing from the dissenting opinion, that the more appropriate fault standard was objective foresight of death. A person convicted of unlawful act manslaughter is eligible to serve a term of life imprisonment. Objective foreseeability of death is the more appropriate standard given that there is a substantial social stigma attached to unlawful act manslaughter, a form of culpable homicide. The current standard is problematic given the breadth of what constitutes “bodily harm” can include all but the most trivial of injuries. Lastly, the article addresses the potential impact of changing the mens rea standard to objective foreseeability of death.
