Law Commission report on MMI pointed out it was never intended for a D to be convicted of murder when he only had the lesser intention of serious harm.
This is because there is no clear distinction- kill in cold blood/ intended harm but not death.
In Cunningham= HL also criticised rule. They said it's strange that a person can be convicted of murder if e.g. death results from intentional breaking of nose= undoubtably involves RSH (Vickers) should carry a server punishment it is unlikely. Jury decides if an offence is serious of not.
Even for someone who did not believe their act to be serious can find themselves in the same category as a serial killer (1.17 SHR).
D intentionally punches someone= breaks nose=fatal brain haemorrhage would be urder if jury decide punish is serious.
Currently- fact that D intented RSH is a mitigating factor (1.20 SHR)- may still be that an offender gets a MLS.
Recommended in CJA 2003= spilt into those who malicisciously intended murder, only intended serious injury and was unaware of risk of death (1.23 SHR)
Comments
No comments have yet been made