Criminal Law Assignment Sample– Detailed Legal Analysis

Introduction to Criminal Law Assignment Sample

This Criminal Law assignment sample is designed to provide a clear and analytical understanding of key concepts under criminal law, particularly focusing on offences such as murder and manslaughter. The assignment sample examines important legal principles including mens rea, actus reus, diminished responsibility, and loss of control, supported by relevant statutory provisions and landmark case laws. Through structured arguments and factual application, this sample demonstrates how courts assess criminal liability in complex situations involving mental illness and provocation. Such an assignment sample is especially useful for law students who want to improve their legal reasoning, case analysis, and academic writing skills. Many students rely on assignment help online to better interpret criminal statutes and apply legal principles accurately in academic submissions, making this sample a practical reference for effective learning.

Question 1: Discussion of the “R vs Calocane case study”

The “R vs Calocane” is a leading criminal case because Valco Calocane faced charges of killing Nottingham’s caretakers and two University students. Respectively, relying on the principles of diminished responsibility, the foregoing case laws belong to the manslaughter rather than murder category. The diagnosis on 12 January identified that the defendant (Mr Calocanbe) had the chronic mental illness of schizophrenia[1]. Therefore, the following section elaborately examines the manslaughter criteria based on the diminished responsibility of the defendant Mr Calocane and describes the fair judgements of whether this charge belongs to murder or manslaughter. 

The criteria based on the diminished kind of responsibility for the manslaughter

Manslaughter is one type of partial defense that can be applicable in charge of the case of murder by following “Section 2, Homicide Act 1957”[2]. Thus the main issue is, what conditions can make Valdo Calocane action be referred to as manslaughter? Hence, the question of interest is to determine when Valdo Calocane’s action can be said to constitute manslaughter and whether the defendant’s action is manslaughter for diminished responsibility.

Strategy to fulfil the criteria

Partial defense under the Diminished responsibility under UK law lowers the murder charges of manslaughter. This Diminished responsibility is used where there are disease or mental disorder. Therefore, application of the Diminished responsibility reduces the murder charges.

Criteria

Thus, ‘the main conditions for the “diminished responsibility” manslaughter can be filed under “Section 2, Homicide Act 1957”. As for the diagnosis it is noted that the patient Valdo Calocane has a long-term mental disorder, Schizophrenia. Therefore, this type of criteria can be applicable when the defendant suffers from some recognized and chronic mental disorder. The other case law that in case helps to formulate the criteria for manslaughter within the frame of the “Diminished responsibility” criteria, is the case law of “R vs Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396”.

Observation of abnormality of mental functions

Defendant must have a diagnosed mental disorder which affected defendant’s thought processes or mood such as schizophrenia or depression[3].

Substantial ability impairment

The mental disorder, should significantly affect the defendant’s capacity to. There is also the requirement that the defendant must be unable to reason as required or appreciate the ramification of his actions.

Understanding of actions nature

Of course, the defendant may not understand that his/her actions are wrongful or cause harm because of a mental health condition[4]. The defendant’s mental disorder or disability has to have caused the action, that is, the crime would not have been committed in the first place.

In light of this, the following are the major factors to fix Manslaughter on the basis of the diminished criteria. Using the case law of “R vs Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396” it was also realized that, the abnormal mind is essential requirement in order to present a defense of diminished responsibility. In this following case, the evidence of the abnormal mind of Calocane is presented and identified that Calocane suffered from chronic Paranoid schizophrenia. Because of the above effects, Calocane hallucinated and experienced the effects of the delusions. The report from Dr. Latham on 12th December is also presented that supports the diagnosis of this chronic Schizophrenia disease. At the same time, the criteria of substantial impairment also lead to this attempt. In the same manners, in the “R vs Campbell [1997] Cr App R 410” the defendants’ mental illness was described which caused some loss of responsibility[5]. Therefore presence of the psychiatric assessment is another important criterion to establish the inability and schizophrenia actions.

As with many cases, the psychiatric report established that Valdo Calocane was suffering from “paranoid schizophrenia” at the time of the offenses. This mental disorder is well known, and as stated earlier it meets the condition laid down in “Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957”. In all the psychiatric reports, focus was laid on the fact that psychotic features such as delusions and hallucinations severely affected the mental functions of the patient.

Hence, to summarize, it could be concluded that in order to get to the requirement of “diminished responsibility” the defendant has to have substantial recognition that defendant has the mental disorder. In the following cases, the evidence of schizophrenia, hallucinations and delusions helps to prove the inability to self-control and wrongful did.

Substituting one charge from murder which modify the possible penalty

Converting the charge from “murder to manslaughter” often lead to lesser penalty. Murder is almost always a mandatory lifer, with the judge deciding a minimum amount of time served. But manslaughter and particularly manslaughter accompanied by diminished responsibility may be followed by a lighter punishment including a hospital order or a definite term of imprisonment. The nature and gravity thereof or otherwise is based on the conduct of the defendant with a special reference to the issue of mental illness in this case. A manslaughter conviction may entail hospital arrest, not necessarily mean an extended stay in prison.

Discussion of the fair charge and outcome

The Manslaughter by following the diminished responsibility is fair under certain circumstances of “the R vs Calocane” case. Because, here, the defendant, Valdo Colocane had the chronic mental illness problem of Schizophrenia for which Calocane faced the hallucination problems and heard the voices[6]. The presence of this type of mental illness directly affects rational decisions for out of control the caretaker and the two University Students were killed by Calocane.

However, in the detailed circumstance described above, the murder charges will mean that Valdo Colocane premeditantly killed the caretaker and the two University students which does not consider mental illness of Colcane. At the same time, consideration of the “diminished responsibility” includes Valdo’s responsibility for doing such a big crime, but the mental state also be highlighted here.

Last of all, the participation of the constant treatment and hospitalization shows the choice of the “psychiatric care” with the prevention from such kinds of offences for the public. The illness severity is also considered in this situation. Therefore the focus is considered for rehabilitation and fair justice.

Question 2: Criminal Law

Introduction

Kamal as well as Jenny were both in a live in relationship until now and have their own flat, which is a proprietorship of Kamal’s parents. However, Jerry had some anxiety and depression issues for several years to develop the conditions for which Jerry took the medication. In recent days therapy was taken to find out the key challenges. One day Jenny reached home and realized that there still plenty of work pending at home to be done, and for which Jenny quarreled about the unequal status of relationship. Suddenly, Kamal shouted over Jenny and expressed some affair indication with Maria[1]. Then Jenney hit on Kamal’s head and Kamal died instantly. Kamal also had certain head injuries since childhood as Kamal met an accident. Based on this case scenario, the following section describes some potential kind of criminal liability and the partial defense of whether this action constitutes manslaughter or murder in the context of some potential defenses of diminished responsibility, provocation, control loss etc.

Discussion

Issue

The legal issue that have been identified is, to determine Jenny’s criminal responsibility for the investigation of the death of Kamal. The identification of constituted actions of Jenny helps to identify whether Jenny’s action belongs to manslaughter or constituted murder. This also does help to see if it was murder that Jenny killed Kamal, or if it is manslaughter which is lack of adequate responsibility and provocation for illnesses such as mental health illness, including anxiety, and depression.

Key Facts

1. It has been quite some time that Kamal and Jenny are in relationship and Kamal and Jenny cohabit at Kamal’s parents’ flat.

1. Jenny also has some issues with anxiety and Jerry has a depression that is also treated with meds and therapy and Jenny does this.
2. In the conflict between Kamal and Jenny, Kamal admits some unlawful business regarding it with Maria.
3. A heavy and large ornament was picked up by Jenny which was fitted on the head of Kamal, and Kamal fell on the floor, and thus instant death occurred.
4. But, Jenny was unaware of the some previous injuries of Kamal which can be a fact of death contribution.

Rule

Identification of Jenny’s criminal Liability

As such from the above fact it will be pertinent to talk the ‘Murder or Manslaughter’ effect by dealing with “Section 1 of the Homicide Act 1967” in order to determine the criminal liability of Jenny. Murder under the provision of “Section 1 of the Homicide Act 1967” is unlawful taking of the life of another[2].

Murder

“Homicide act 1967 of section 1”, murder means unlawful act with intention to kill. This includes the acts of murder and maiming or killing. Hence, in the case of Jenny that follows, Kamal died because Jerry struck him with a heavy ornament. However Kamal had a previous injury on the head when Kamal was young from an accident.

Manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter can occur through the operation of “Homicide act 1967 of section 2” which presupposes some extent of diminished responsibility or some provocation that heated up the anger issue of the defendant Jerry. In that case, Jenny can show the “loss of control” as a result of Kamal provoking her with an affair going on with Maria[3]. This is one cause in which ground Jerry can defend the situation of manslaughter instead of murder. Jenney can also confirm the benefits of accounts in meditation and in therapy for the diseases of depressive and anxiety. Under Section 2 of the Homicide Act/1967, Jenney can also be able to state the "Diminished responsibility". This ‘Diminished Responsibility’ takes mental illness into account. Presence of the mental illness is responsible for this type of action by which Jenney killed Kamal[4]. Also, the presence of anxiety and long-term depression is the responsible factor for these types of actions.

Therefore, the discussion of general principles under Criminal law can be described as follows.

“Acts Reus under Guilty Act”

This act is actually a voluntary action and it is also a legal crime in terms of the illegal activities.

“Mens Rea under Guilty Mind”

This refers to the mental state of the accused person together with any possible ramifications, aimed purposes and thoughtlessness.

Proof of the burden

The main responsibility is proof of the burden of Jerry in this situation[5].

Causation

The Caution should be to prove that Kamal’s death happened due to an attack on Jenny’s. Without consideration of mental illness of Jenny and past head injuries Kamal, the root cause of Kamal’s death.

Criminal Damage

Again through the schema “Criminal Damage Act 1971, of Section 1” we are able to pinpoint the reckless damages or intentional killings[6]. This Act also classify whether Jenney deliberately broke that window or alternatively whether the breaking was done in the absence of any sort of legal justifications. In this case, Jenny can utter that this is done because of anger of Jenney that’s why she acted impulsively.

Application

The Homicide act of 1967 section 2 is used to find where Jerry sit between murder charges and manslaughter charges. Whether the “Homicide Act 1967”, of section 2 applied, decides whether it is murder to be killed unlawfully by other persons. In this case Kamal shouted the illegal indication of affair with Maria which made Jennery angry and she could not control her anger. In this following situation the act of Kamal is confessed which led to the Impulse action toward the side of Jenny[7]. The case law of “R vs Chunnigham (1982)” is an example where the intended killing is occurred, however, in the following situation Jenney did not intentionally kill Kamal instead the killing happened due to emotional distress of Kamal’s affair. Technically, Jenny’s strike was impulsive, rather than premeditated due to the emotional scandal initiated by Kamal’ affair. In this case there is no murder because Jenny is crazy and did not intend to kill, but it may constitute manslaugher.

Manslaughter

Manslaughter can be of two types those are “voluntary manslaughter” and “involuntary manslaughter”. Therefore in the circumstances voluntary manslaughter due to provocation or diminished responsibility fits the situation better. Under the “Criminal Law”, at common law and “under Section 3 of the Homicide Act (1957)”, Jenny may probably appeal that Kamal made her angry and force her to use an excessive force on him, which made Kamal’s dead. Application of the “R vs Camplin (1978)” founds that provocation concept can be identified from reasonable persons perspectives.

That is why, Jenny could point to the fact that being emotionally harmed by Kamal’s announcement of the affair, Jenny simply lost control[8]. The court can ask the question whether in case of knowing about Jenny’s emotional distress, a reasonable person would act like that. The type of response Jenny gives the court could become considered, excessive, and the defense may not work, and voluntary manslaughter remains an option.

Diminished Responsibility

The mental condition that Jenny had from depression and anxiety justified “under Section 2 of the “Homicide Act 1957” diminished responsibility. This defense is called when a defendant is mentally abnormal and, therefore, unable to correctly appreciate the nature of the act committed to have intent or control the action[9]. In this case, the common law of the “R vs Byrne 1960” assists in understanding the clarification of the defendant’s contention that assist in reducing the responsibility of the presence of an abnormal mind.”

Involuntary Manslaughter

This is so if Jenny responds to killing Kamal in terms of recklessly attending. Likewise, “R vs Adomako (1995)” another case Law, where the “House of Lord” pointed out that this type of involuntary Manslaughter situation can lead to recklessness or negligence. In the case some specific question may arise whether Jerry acted recklessly or not[10].

Application of the “Criminal Damage”

Here too when Jerry throws the heavy ornaments’ towards the window it becomes very uncontrolled or reckless in term of loss of emotional distress. The “R vs G (2003)” is another example of a criminal damage situation which identified that the criminal should be aware of recklessness. Although in this particular scheme Jerry did not intentionally break the window and this case represents the situation of emotional distress.

Exploration of available partial defenses to Jenny

It is noteworthy that the present situation can be associated with the concept of partial defense. Jenny can play the partial defense by which Jerry can lessen the murder charges of Kamal partly, and point out the situation as manslaughter. Here also Jenny can stress upon the aspect of provocation, and decreased responsibility based on the “Homicide Act of 1957”. Using this Partial Defense helps to decrease the provocation factor that is Kamal’s affair. In regard to “R vs Duffy (1949)” the feelings and emotions that can be attributed to the case can also be written here. Therefore, this section has to answer whether it is sufficient to strike Kamal’s head the provocation of the above part or the deconstruction of the emotional distress, is the point that can lead to loss of self-control in the next scenario[11]. Another question is if it was quite rational decision to anger Jenny with the reaction which she put forward. To find out the diminished responsibility and intention of killing Jenny, the “Homicide Act 1957 of Section 2” also contributed for it. Yet, Jerry can explore the therapy details which itself along with education utilized to handle anxiety and depression is.

Impact of defense charge

The “voluntary manslaughter” situation tells about the result of the defense that is used explaining “the diminished responsibility” and “loss of control”. On. This can highly affect the sentences of Jenny. Nonetheless, furnishing of manslaughter aid to decrease the sentence range, which also indicates the mental distress situation. Applying the case of “R vs Welsh (2005)” can also reveal that the defendants were absolved from the responsibility on the elimination of the situation death. Hence, Jenney can be out on the streets earlier if Jenney submits a good evidence of false emotions of emotional distress and anxiety.

Evaluation of Fairness Outcome and Charge

That is the defenses that has to be well and truly adopted in this case must correspond with jenny’s mental status and conditions under which the event took place. The loss of control defense has its foundation on the fact that arising from Kamal’s statement and Jenny’s response that shocked her, would in many a case, entitle a reduction of the degree of the charge preferred. As a result, reasonableness is used to define the provability of the reaction from Jerry prove about[12]. As relevant, and properly left to the judge to decide in light of the expert evidence that must be led, is the minority factor, to determine whether Jenny had the capacity to form the requisite intent at the time of the alleged offences.

Conclusion

The above section pays adequate details on the manner in which the murder or the manslaughter was done. Hence there is ambiguity whether Kamal’s death would fall under murder of manslaughter. The main problem was that Jenney had a history of chronic mental illness, anxiety and depression which would raise doubt of Jerry’s criminal responsibility. The above section goes on to explain that even if thought of mental illness enhance the cause of reducing the punishment of Jerry it actually does not. However, in that case, court are willing to have Jerry to provide therapy documents, medication documents, and anxiety health issues and illness concerns.

Reference

Journals

Question 1

• Edwards, S.S. (2021) ‘Women who kill abusive partners: Reviewing the impact of Section 55(3) “fear of serious violence” manslaughter – some empirical findings’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 72(2). doi:10.53386/nilq.v72i2.877.
• Mitchell, B. (2016) ‘Loss of self-control under the coroners and justice act 2009: Oh no!’, Loss of Control and Diminished Responsibility, pp. 39–50. doi:10.4324/9781315593012-4.
• RAJGOPAL, S. and TANTRI, P. (2022) ‘Does a government mandate crowd out voluntary corporate social responsibility? evidence from India’, Journal of Accounting Research, 61(1), pp. 415–447. doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12461.
• Rishu Rani (2022) ‘A descriptive study on Culpable Homicide & Murder’, Legal Research Development, 6(IV), pp. 25–28. doi:10.53724/lrd/v6n4.08.
• Taddeo, M. and Blanchard, A. (2022) ‘Accepting moral responsibility for the actions of autonomous weapons systems—a moral gambit’, Philosophy & Technology, 35(3). doi:10.1007/s13347-022-00571-x.

Website

• Manslaughter sentencing in the UK: Lawtons law (2024) Lawtons Solicitors. Available at: https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-the-sentence-for-manslaughter-how-many-years-could-you-face-in-prison/ (Accessed: 29 January 2025).
• Edwards, S.S. (2021) ‘Women who kill abusive partners: Reviewing the impact of Section 55(3) “fear of serious violence” manslaughter – some empirical findings’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 72(2). doi:10.53386/nilq.v72i2.877.
• Mitchell, B. (2016) ‘Loss of self-control under the coroners and justice act 2009: Oh no!’, Loss of Control and Diminished Responsibility, pp. 39–50. doi:10.4324/9781315593012-4.
• RAJGOPAL, S. and TANTRI, P. (2022) ‘Does a government mandate crowd out voluntary corporate social responsibility? evidence from India’, Journal of Accounting Research, 61(1), pp. 415–447. doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12461.
• [Rishu Rani (2022) ‘A descriptive study on Culpable Homicide & Murder’, Legal Research Development, 6(IV), pp. 25–28. doi:10.53724/lrd/v6n4.08.
• Taddeo, M. and Blanchard, A. (2022) ‘Accepting moral responsibility for the actions of autonomous weapons systems—a moral gambit’, Philosophy & Technology, 35(3). doi:10.1007/s13347-022-00571-x.
• Manslaughter sentencing in the UK: Lawtons law (2024) Lawtons Solicitors. Available at: https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-the-sentence-for-manslaughter-how-many-years-could-you-face-in-prison/ (Accessed: 29 January 2025).

Question 2

Primary Source

Homicide Act 1967

Homicide act 1967 (no date) Homicide Act 1967 (Hansard). Available at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/homicide-act-1967 (Accessed: 29 January 2025).

Criminal Law

Participation, E. (no date) Criminal law act 1977, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45 (Accessed: 29 January 2025).

Section 2 of the “Homicide Act 1957

Participation, E. (1978) Homicide act 1957, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/section/2#:~:text=2%20Persons%20suffering%20from%20diminished%20responsibility.&text=(c)provides%20an%20explanation%20for,a%20party%20to%20the%20killing.&text=(a)to%20understand%20the%20nature,)to%20exercise%20self%2Dcontrol. (Accessed: 29 January 2025).

Secondary Source

Journals

• Alsharkawy, M. et al. (2023) ‘Car T cell therapy: A new hope for refractory lupus?’, Rheumatology, 2(2), p. 1. doi:10.17925/rmd.2023.2.2.1.
• Button, M. et al. (2022) ‘Assessing the seriousness of cybercrime: The case of computer misuse crime in the United Kingdom and the victims’ perspective’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, p. 174889582211281. doi:10.1177/17488958221128128.
• Demény, M.A. and Virág, L. (2021) ‘The PARP enzyme family and the hallmarks of cancer part 1. cell intrinsic hallmarks’, Cancers, 13(9), p. 2042. doi:10.3390/cancers13092042.
• Dickson, D.J. (2024) ‘The European Arrest Warrant in Scots Law’, Transnational Criminal Law Review, 3(1). doi:10.22329/tclr.v3i1.8495.
• Guilfoyle, M. (2023) ‘Book review: Drug science and british drug policy: Critical analysis of the misuse of drugs act 1971’, Probation Journal, 70(1), pp. 81–83. doi:10.1177/02645505231162578a.
• Moore, M.T. (2013) ‘United Kingdom’, Comparative Corporate Governance, pp. 913–956. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139177375.026.
• Ploeg, O.H. et al. (2024) ‘Murder or manslaughter: The role of premeditation and associated behavioural characteristics’, Psychology, Crime & Law, pp. 1–24. doi:10.1080/1068316x.2024.2405678.
• Rishu Rani (2022) ‘A descriptive study on Culpable Homicide & Murder’, Legal Research Development, 6(IV), pp. 25–28. doi:10.53724/lrd/v6n4.08.
• Roper, V. (2023) ‘The investigation of Corporate Manslaughter and corporate homicide’, The Routledge International Handbook of Homicide Investigation, pp. 265–277. doi:10.4324/9781003195283-24.
• Homicide Act 1967 (no date) Homicide Act 1967 (Hansard). Available at: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/homicide-act-1967 (Accessed: 29 January 2025).
• Participation, E. (no date) Criminal law act 1977, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45 (Accessed: 29 January 2025).
• Participation, E. (1978) Homicide act 1957, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/section/2#:~:text=2%20Persons%20suffering%20from%20diminished%20responsibility.&text=(c)provides%20an%20explanation%20for,a%20party%20to%20the%20killing.&text=(a)to%20understand%20the%20nature,)to%20exercise%20self%2Dcontrol. (Accessed: 29 January 2025).
• Alsharkawy, M. et al. (2023) ‘Car T cell therapy: A new hope for refractory lupus?’, Rheumatology, 2(2), p. 1. doi:10.17925/rmd.2023.2.2.1.
• Button, M. et al. (2022) ‘Assessing the seriousness of cybercrime: The case of computer misuse crime in the United Kingdom and the victims’ perspective’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, p. 174889582211281. doi:10.1177/17488958221128128.
• Demény, M.A. and Virág, L. (2021) ‘The PARP enzyme family and the hallmarks of cancer part 1. cell intrinsic hallmarks’, Cancers, 13(9), p. 2042. doi:10.3390/cancers13092042.
• Dickson, D.J. (2024) ‘The European Arrest Warrant in Scots Law’, Transnational Criminal Law Review, 3(1). doi:10.22329/tclr.v3i1.8495.
• Guilfoyle, M. (2023) ‘Book review: Drug science and british drug policy: Critical analysis of the misuse of drugs act 1971’, Probation Journal, 70(1), pp. 81–83. doi:10.1177/02645505231162578a.
• Moore, M.T. (2013) ‘United Kingdom’, Comparative Corporate Governance, pp. 913–956. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139177375.026.
• Ploeg, O.H. et al. (2024) ‘Murder or manslaughter: The role of premeditation and associated behavioural characteristics’, Psychology, Crime & Law, pp. 1–24. doi:10.1080/1068316x.2024.2405678.
• Rishu Rani (2022) ‘A descriptive study on Culpable Homicide & Murder’, Legal Research Development, 6(IV), pp. 25–28. doi:10.53724/lrd/v6n4.08.
• Roper, V. (2023) ‘The investigation of Corporate Manslaughter and corporate homicide’, The Routledge International Handbook of Homicide Investigation, pp. 265–277. doi:10.4324/9781003195283-24.