Criminal Law and Homicide Essay Sample

Introduction

The homicide rates in UK are increased significantly in the last decade. The essay will identify the current law that governs homicide cases in England and Wales. In the study, the key issues in the law will also be identified. The study will also highlight the reforms that is proposed by the Law commission. The thesis statement of the study is “'The law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations. Some of its rules have been unaltered since the seventeenth century, even though it has long been acknowledged that they are in dire need of reform”.

Don't let assignment stress get the best of you! Trust New Assignment Help for all your academic needs. Our dedicated team offers exceptional assignment writing services in the UK, ensuring your success. Browse through our free assignment samples for valuable insights.

Discussion

The current law that is governing homicide in England and Wales is Homicide Act 1957. The Homicide Act 1957 came into action in the form of partial reform. It was responsible in abolishment of the doctrine in terms of constructive malice. The law lays emphasis on defence of provocation. After the Royal commission on Capital Punishment in 1953 settled, the recommendation from this session was integrated within the Homicide Act 1957. It is because in the case of Ellis vs R [1955], Ruth was hanged to death even though she had potentially strong defence for diminished responsibility, however, the existing law did not have the provisions for covering such defence to murder charges (Campbell, 2018). Furthemore, the Royal Commission emphasised to abolish capital punishment. In an attempt to address such increasing pressure from the Royal Commission and absence of provisions in diminished responsibility pushed the government to introduce Homicide Act 1957. The main responsibility of the Act is to reduce the utilisation of capital punishment. The enactment of Homicide Act 1957 is associated with the reduced number of verdicts that has resulted in the death penalty for murder. In the findings of Koessler (1960), it is supported that the adoption of the Homicide Act 1957 has a positive association with the decreased death penalty sentences. Furthermore, Egwea (2022) has suggested that the death penalty rates in UK has decreased. Therefore, it is analysed that the enactment of Homicide Act 1957 has a positive effect on the accounts of death penalty verdicts.

One of the major sections of the Homicide Act 1957 is the abolition of constructive malice. Section 1 is responsible in rendering the doctrine of constructive malice ineffective, except, where the intention is implicitly based on causing grevious bodily harm. As per the S(1) of Homicide Act 1957, it is stated that “Where a person kills another in the course, the killing shall not amount to murder unless done with the same malice aforethought as is required for a killing to amount to murder when not done in the course or furtherance of another offence ” (Gov, 2023).

One of the key issues in the Homicide Act 1957 is the partial defences to murder. It is because the partial defences to murder is somewhat compromised by the ambiguous depiction of provocation defence in the section 3 of 1957 as it indicates no limitation for conduct that is capable for provoking a defendant to kill. This implies that the absolutely innocent conduct performed by the deceased can also be raised as provocative intent by the defence. Similar observation can be made in the case of Regina vs Doughty (2006) as the defendant, Regina raised the child's constant crying as an act of provocation, which drove her to kill the child by strangling her (Law resources, 2023). This shows how the completely innocent conduct of crying was raised as a provocation to kill and illustrates a major gap in the Homicide Act 1957. Furthermore, this ambiguous definition of provocation also opposes the basic cornerstone of defence. It is because it suggest that a defence can never be established by stating that a victim's behaviour contributed to the loss of temper of the defendant, which, in turn, influenced him/her to commit the particular crime. In the findings of Hughes (2023) , it is supported that the implications of the Homicide Act 1957 have been culpable when it comes to defining partial defence to murder due to fallacies in section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957. On the contrary, Dix (2012) has argued that the Homicide Act 1957 has been influential in reducing crime rates. The previous finding has its own limitations as the researcher has not considered the scope of performing validity and reliability test for the research variables which undermines the quality of the research findings significantly. Therefore, it is analysed that the key issue of partial defences to murder in the Homicide Act 1957 is driven by the ambiguous demonstration of provocation of defence in the section 3 of the law. One of the major reasons behind such weakness is the lack of reform. In the works of, it is observed that the wrong verdicts in homicide cases is due to the lack of reforms in the legislation. Hence, it is observed that the reform of partial defences to murder in Homicide Act 1957 emerges to be a necessity.

Another key issue that has been observed in the Homicide Act 1957 is the lack of specificity while defining the intent to murder. It is because the express and implied malice, which is described by the section 1 of the law as an intent to murder, are not reliable and results in unjustified imprisonment terms. It is because the implied malice is associated with involuntary manslaughter, which accounts for 11 years in prison whereas express malice is defined by voluntary manslaughter, which accounts for 4 4-year prison sentence. This difference exists due to the fact that the expressed malice indicate an intent of the individual to incur a bodily damage whereas the implied malice suggests the killing of an individual while performing a felony or depraved negligence to human life. However, this should not be in the case as the punishment should be equal for both the instances since both of these activities results in loss of life irrespective of what their intent was driven by to commit such a crime. Similar questions were raised in the case of People v. Poddar [1974] as the defendant appealed that his conduct of murdering Tatiyana was due to implied malice instead of express malice and should be reduced to second-degree murder (Justia, 2023). The court accepted the appeal of second-degree murder, and reduced the prison term and the court verdict, Homicide Act was subjected to controversy. In the findings of Hughes (2023), it is observed that the express and implied malice has been an area of dispute in the Homicide Act 1957. On the contrary, Hossain and Rahi (2018) have opposed that the Homicide Act 1957 has been influential in addressing the murder case with appropriate deployment of express and implied malice. The previous statement have severe limitations in the aspects of credibility as the researcher has considered a small sample size, which limits the authenticity of the opinion significantly. Therefore, it is analysed that the assumptions of express and implied malice have posed major weaknesses in the Homicide Act 1957. Hence, it indicates that the Homicide Act of 1957 needs extensive reform in terms of defining the intent to murder.

One of the major proposals of reform that has been put forward by the Law Commission in an attempt to improve the Homicide Act 1957 is the provision of clear definition to the intent of murder and partial defence to murder (Hughes, 2022). It is because the Homicide Act 1957 focuses on implied and expressed malice to define the intent to murder which decreases the criminal perception of the committing a murder. Furthermore, Homicide Act 1957 fails to provide concrete explanation for provocative activities while judging murder cases and, thus, has resulted in the submission of the proposal that focuses on describing partial defence to murder. Another proposal of reform that is brought up by the Law Commission is the use of the ladder principle to define murder, partial murder defence and manslaughter. This principle suggests that particular crimes of homicide and partial murder defence must reside in an offence hierarchy or graduation system. The system should highlight on the extent of mitigation in case of partial defence and extent of seriousness in the case of offence. This initiative is aimed to reduce the coverage and breadth of manslaughter.

The government has accepted the proposal of clear definition of intent of murder. In 2006, the government has accepted a reformation of the clauses that define the intent of murder and partial defence to murder in the Homicide Act 1957. The government was right to accept this proposal as it will shed light on the extent of impact that is associated with acts of homicide. One of the key arguments against the reform is causing major disruption in the pending cases. It is because the UK judicial system is vast and the application of the new reform in criminal courts in UK might delay the verdict of pending homicide cases.

Overwhelmed by Criminal Law Theories? New Assignment Help is here to make things easier for you. We specialize in providing comprehensive Criminal Law Assignment Help, tailored to meet your specific needs. Let our expert team handle the hard work while you enjoy the results. Contact us now for a brighter academic future!

Conclusion

From the study, it is concluded that the Homicide Act 1957 is the legislation that is followed for Homicide in England and Wales. The findings of the study indicate that the partial defences to murder and definition of intent to murder are the major weakness of the Homicide Act 1957. The results also illustrate that extensive reforms for making amendments to the Homicide Act 1957 has been proposed by Law Commission.

References

• Campbell, D. (2018). Ruth Ellis: the murder case we can't forget. (2018). Retrieved 6 July 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/12/ruth-ellis-files-bbc-documentary-murder-case-cant-let-go
• Dix, G.E. (2012). Psychological abnormality as a factor in grading criminal liability: Diminished capacity, diminished responsibility, and the like.J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci.,62, 313.
• Egwea, R.O., (2022). A Comparative Study of Capital Punishment Trends: A Case of Uganda and the United Kingdom.J. Glob. Just. & Pub. Pol'y,8, 31.
• Gov. (2023). Retrieved 6 July 2023, from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/section/1#:~:text=(1)Where%20a%20person%20kills,or%20furtherance%20of%20another%20offence.
• Hossain, M.B. & Rahi, S.T., (2018). Murder: A critical analysis of the common law definition.Beijing L. Rev.,9, 460.
• Hughes, D. (2022). A NEW HOMICIDE ACT FOR ENGLAND AND WALES? Retrieved 6 July 2023, from https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/03/cp177_Murder_Manslaughter_and_Infanticide_consultation_.pdf
• Hughes, D. (2023). The Law Commission: Partial Defences to Murder. Retrieved 6 July 2023, from https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2015/04/Law-Commission-consultation-paper-173-partial-defences-to-murder.pdf
• Justia. (2023). People v. Poddar. Retrieved 6 July 2023, from https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/10/750.html
• Koessler, M., (1960). Comparative Aspects of the English Homicide Act of 1957.Mo. L. Rev.,25,107-110.
• Lawresources. (2023). Voluntary manslaughter - provocation. Retrieved 6 July 2023, from http://elawresources.co.uk/Provocation.php