Criminal Law (Advise Katarina, Paula, and Jenny as to their potential Essay

Criminal Law (Advise Katarina, Paula, and Jenny as to their potential liability for homicide) - Essay ExampleThere are three ship canal of commissioning homicide a) killing with motive where one may have the chance of partial defence b) gross negligent place causing death and c) treacherous harm that culminates to death (Ashworth 2006). In scenario a referred to as above, is a voluntary manslaughter. The remaining attempts fall within the ambit of involuntary manslaughter.Mens ReaThe intention of horror fall within the definition of Mens rea that deals with the state of thought of a suspect at the time of committing a crime to determine criminal liability. In order to reconstruct the responsibility of crimes of a defendant, mens rea at the time of committing crimes is essential under the criminal act. In other words, motives refer to the reason that compelled the defendant to commit criminal act. produce the examples of Fred and Wilma whose matrimonial relationship last for ab out twenty years. Later on, Fred began to suspect that his wife was having sexual affairs with Barney, which made him enraged. He bought gun and shot her to death. The reason under reference indicates criminal act of Wilma and the intent of Fred to kill her. The motive was very clear (Ormerod 2011). It is to be noted that only motive is not ample to attack a criminal. Other supportive evidences are also required to establish a case against the defendant. Contrary to that, public prosecutor proves that the motive of the defendant was to kill. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove criminal liability.... ves the motive and not the mens rea, there is a strong chance that the defendant must be acquitted by the competent court of law, no subject area how bad is the intention. Further if a public prosecutor proves the mens rea with the actus reus, the defendant will not escape from conviction, no matter how noble his motive is (Ormerod 2011). In this respect you may please refer to th e cases of Hyam vs DPP (1975), R v Ried (1992), State v. Asher (Ark. 1888). Actus Reus The other way round, actus reusin accordance with the broader definition of criminal lawcomprises all ingredients of a crime other than the state of mind of a criminal.In a nutshell,actus reusmay have the following components a)conduct b) outcome c) state of affairs and d) omission (Loveless 2012). Here we may refer to the cases of R v Miller (1982), R v Adams 1957, Devlin J, Armstrong, R v 1989 Owen J and Cox, R v(1992) Winchester Crown Court, Ognall J. Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea A thorough study of Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine (2010) of Simester and R. Sullivan revealed that according to general rule, the actus reus and mens rea of a crime may have coincidence in terms of behavioural and circumstantial elements with regard to actus reus, which occur at the same time thus satisfying the requirements of mens rea (Simester et al 2010). Potential Liability Holder We have analyzed the whole situation on the mentioned parameters of homicide, which makes Katarina, responsible for the murder of Victor. Her motive for murdering her married boyfriend speaks of jealous disposition syndrome. Because said boyfriend refused to spend the night with her since he selected another girlfriend Audrey for having a sexual pleasure in the night. Katrina felt insulted and made up her mind to