This assignment provides a scenario in which Joe finds himself relying on self defence after a late night walk home, Joe was crossing the road away from a group of youths that then started shouting abuse at him. One youth then followed and approached Joe, as he approached Joe then swung a punch harder than expected and knocked the youth unconscious. As the defendant Joe will need to be advised on his defence and this assignment will consider relevant law from previous cases and apply it to the material facts and various issues within his case.
Particular guidelines have been put in place by The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) to set the standard of self defence and the grounds upon which it can be claimed; it must be in order to defend one's self, family, property or in order to prevent crime or apprehend an offender.
The first issue that must be taken into consideration would be the fact the youths crossed the road when they saw Joe cross to then start shouting abuse at him, for anyone late at night this would be very intimidating. A particular case that would highlight a similar situation would be R V Martin [2002] where by Tony Martin lived alone in an isolated farm house, due to the state of the property it was host to numerous break ins. One night 2 males aged
…show more content…
This can result in a very strong, very quick snap decision. In order to highlight this the case of Beckford V The Queen [1988] would be a prime example. The appellant was a Police Officer raiding a house believed to house an armed individual, as they entered he believed he heard a gunshot and so he fired resulting in the death of the gun man. Upon later inspection there appeared to be no firearm in sight. It was held that Beckford was found guilty of murder however it was later quashed after an appeal on the grounds of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) S. 76(3)
In recent years, the question of how self-defense is justified has been prominent in communities all over the nation. The “Stand your Ground” laws were enacted to give victims the right to fight back when faced with a life-threatening situation. Events that have occurred after enacting this law have brought forward anger and push back from communities who have been effected. The criminal justice system and the public frequently disagree on the pros and cons of the “Stand your Ground” laws and therefore not all states have passed it. This paper will discuss the origin of the “Stand your Ground” laws, the conflicts that have risen it, and the pros and cons.
I think it would be difficult for the prosecution to form an argument off of my points. The prosecution admitted that they don’t argue that Ms. Stephens is a victim of abuse, but rather is not suffering from battered woman syndrome. Once I use all of my witnesses and explain how Ms. Stephens is a clear case of battered woman syndrome, I think they will have a difficult time arguing that considering she clearly has every sign and symptom. The only argument I think they can use would be that because Mr. Stephens went to take a nap, Ms. Stephens could have just called the police and not shot him herself. I think members of the jury may also agree with this purely on the basis that those who aren’t victims of abuse can easily have the mindset that
During the trial Daniel Lewis Allan was charged with several criminal acts, such as possession of a stolen vehicle worth over $5,000, breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit assault therein, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, aggravated assault and robbery, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, or for committing an offence. The accused assaulted the complainant, Allan Sutton, on August 29th 2003, dragged him out of the house, had placed the victim’s body in the trunk of the stolen car, seriously injured him in order to obtain the PIN number of the complainant’s debit card, and dumped the body at the side of McMillan road. On the morning of the event, the victim was in the bathroom of his house in Surrey getting
The police practice of carding is fundamentally perceived as a race and class issue that has come to define a tumultuous relationship between police and people of colour from the past to modern-day, causing a mistrust in police and the system. The practice of police stops allow police to operate in a grey area by obtaining evidence and information through psychological intimidation, many times directed to youth. The recent call for legislation and accountability of police has brought the issue to the forefront of media and public concern. There have been many police and community based investigations on the practice, one being the Police and Community Engagement Review (PACER). PACER stipulated that the police were going to go forward
He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but in December, 2003, he was notified that it had declined to hear his case. He soon received a court order announcing that “the Director of the Department of Criminal Justice at Huntsville, Texas, acting by and through the executioner designated by said Director . . . is hereby DIRECTED and COMMANDED, at some hour after 6:00 p.m. on the 17th day of February, 2004, at the Department of Criminal Justice in Huntsville, Texas, to carry out this sentence of death by intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal quantity sufficient to cause the death of said Cameron Todd Willingham.”
A crime that recently happened was the Marrisa Alexander case. A mother of 3 sentence to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband. Can we use rational choice theory to state that Marrisa Alexander, was a delinquent who committed this crime with all understanding of the law and knowledge of penalty? Physical and verbal abuse can blur the line for a victim that rational thinking may sometimes become and irrational. We will review if Ms. Alexander case, to better understand was this crime committed by a criminal or someone under duress, was rationality used during this incident, and was all preventive measures taken to prevent this crime or was this a case where the law provided no justice for the victim.
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
Thesis: The state of Florida Stand your ground laws give the impression set against the minority, benefit the majority and exhibit loopholes that leaves the innocent without life. A. Stand your ground law was first pass in Florida were homicide is at its worst. B. The Stand your ground law set a pattern of allowing the guilty to be innocent and the innocent to be guilty. C. Shoot now and ask Question latter is not a peaceful answer to the problem in an environment with principles and laws that will protect the human race.
The initial case to examine is DPP v Smith, where the House of Lords held that an objective stance was applicable in establishing oblique intent if a person intended the natural and probable consequence of his actions. However, this legal position was overturned and reversed by the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Through statute, Parliament intended for s8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to define the meaning of oblique intent, to include that a court or jury, when, ‘determining whether a person has committed an offence- (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions;’ but more essentially, ‘(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.’ The courts ruled that a subjective test be required when determining oblique intent, answering the first two questions given above, but giving rise to a series of consecutive issues regarding the penultimate question: how probable is it that the adverse effect will occur but more essentially, does it have to be virtually certain to occur or does it have to be mere
Introduction In the matter of R v Francis , the defendant (Glen Reginald Francis) was being tried for the attempted murder of Timothy Udris. On 8th June 2014, Glenn Francis (‘Francis’) attacked Timothy Udris (‘Udris’), who was hit at least two times with a claw hammer to the skull. The Crown submitted that Francis had attempted to murder Udris, under s306 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
The Second Amendment states that one has the right to bear arms. This right can be taken away from one when they do some sort of crime that goes against this and gets their right taken away from them. Around 3 million americans carry a gun with they all the time with a concealed weapons permit. That number is 20% out of the 15 million americans that have a concealed weapons permit. We should not get rid of the right to carry a concealed weapon though there are exceptions depending on the person and their history.
Shook argues that this assertion ignores the correlation between poverty and crime. Children of color experience the gap between the rich and poor, and are frequently exposed to crime whilst living in underprivileged communities where there is lack of community policing. Shook also explains that the public in general is more accepting of transferring youth into adult courts based on experiences with racial minorities or the presumption that youth of color are naturally prone to do crime at a greater scale. This presumption is often referred as the ‘super predator threat’ in the article, which undermines that the youth are now criminally charged for longer periods of time and are deemed as dangerous to the society. Shook encourages a need for ‘rethinking transfer’ of juveniles and argues for youth development rather than social control.
For decades now, the controversy over deadly force has continued to show up in the news when police officers have acted in a manner that some citizens find just while others deem completely unfair. Many lawsuits stemming from shootings and crimes have found their way to local courts or the Supreme Court to deal with this issue. A portion of the U.S. population finds deadly force unnecessary when non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray or batons just as easily subdue the criminal. In addition, these citizens argue that officers might be liable for cases filed against them if they use excess force on people that seem suspicious but have not actually committed a crime. On the other hand, the opposing argument in favor of deadly force states that
Title: Gun Safety Rules and Tips Guns are inherently dangers and should be handled with care. Improper use, storage and care of firearms leads to unintentional deaths, injury or damage. If you are a firearm owner, a potential gun owner or a curious about the use and effects of guns, then learning about gun safety is essential. Gun safety rules are the recommendations given to minimize or eliminate accidental or negligent discharge and the consequences of malfunctioning firearms. They also impart knowledge on properly storing firearms.
Criminology Case Study: Meredith Kercher Name Academic Institution Author Note Class Professor Date TABLE OFCONTENTS1 CASE/OFFENDER 3 OFFENSE/CRIME 4 MOTIVATIONS/BACKGROUND 4 THEORY 5 VICTIMS 6 COSTS 7 ADJUDICATION/DISPOSITION (PROSECUTION/SENTENCING) 7 CONCLUSION 8 REFERENCES 10 Criminology Case Study: Meredith Kercher