First 646 words of the document:
Evaluation on murder
In 2006 the law commission published a report on murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
However there were many criticisms. The first criticism was `the law on murder was developed bit
by bit in individual cases but is not a coherent whole especially relation to meaning of murder. The
main problem with this lied with the foresight of consequences. Establishing the men's rea in
cases whether the prime intent was to not to kill, will inevitably involve problems. Did the d
intend cause harm? Did he foresee his consequences of his actions? At the current moment a
person can be guilty of murder if he intended serous harm but death results. But of the
defendant does intend to cause kill he will be found guilty and to someone who does intend to
kill, and how about the one who does intend to cause serious harm. In case of hancock v
shanklands. The d held that the only motive was to block the road not to kill, they appealed this
can conviction went down to manslaughter. The main problem with this lies with the foresight of
consequences where there is little to clarify this. for example in case of Woolin it was held that
intention was found from foresight of consequences whereas in Mathews and allyen it was held
that foresight of consequences is same as intention. Despite the numerous cases which help to
find the right meaning of intention there is no clear rule on whether intention is same as
foresight of consequences or whether it is same as intention.
Recently there have been suggestions for reform?
1. The law commission held that criminal law should be included in news single legislation,
instead of act of parliament and common law where everything is scattered. a criminal
code draft 1967 was created it stated " the d is found guilty of murder is he causes the
death of another- 1) he causes the death 2) he causes serious personal injury which then
results in death.
So this means when the d did not intend to kill but has intention as in B. the jury can find
him guilty of murder if they sure that the defendant could foresee the consequences of
his action. This is clearly unjust; however no attempts to change this have been made. The
second suggestion for reform was. Again the law commission proposed the offences
against the person and general principles, to define the meaning of intentionally as 1) it
was n not his purpose to cause it, 2) it is purpose to cause it , the d is aware this is will
occur in events even if he succeeded in his another purpose to cause it. also the criminal
justice act 1967 given the definition of murder.
The second criticism was that `the duress of defence is not available for the duress of murder.
Duress is when the d is threatened with serious injury or death in order for them to take part in
an offence. most offences have duress as a defence but there is no defence for murder or
attempted murder. the law commission gives an example. A taxi driver vehicle is commandeered
and the gun man points a gun towards the drivers head and tells him to take him somewhere
where the gunman wants to shoot someone. the d river does what he is told the gunman
shoots and kills someone. Under the existing law the driver is compliance in the killing, and then
he will receive a mandatory sentence similar to the gunman. the suggestion of reform is that ......
if he can show that the he was threatened is with death or serous harm