What Was The Difference Between Sawyer And Sayid's Murder?
i.i Sawyer and Sayid
The legal definition on murder is “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”
In order for Sawyer to be convicted of Sayid’s murder it needs to be establish that the actus reus (guilty act) was present while the mens rea (guilty mind) and Sayid’s death was a result Sawyer unlawful act.
The actus reus of murder is unlawful act which results in death of another human being within the queen’s peace. The mens rea of murder is intention also known as malice aforethought there are two types of intention. Direct intended this is where the result of the person’s actions are intended, there is intent to kill is type of intention is also known as express malice aforethought. Oblique intend is where intention …show more content…
No need for immediacy. Killings those have been incited, or are in revenge or which are due to sexual.
Qualifying trigger:
S55(3) - D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another. S55(4) things done or said which (a) are extremely grave and (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged [objective].
In order to determinate if Locke can use the partial defence of loss of control these are the questions we need to ask: Did Locke have a qualifying triggers, what there anything said or done or a fear of serious violence? No, Hurley did not provoke or in any sense caused a fear of violence to Locke. This means the partial defence for loss of control has failed.
Locke could be liable for involuntary manslaughter under diminished responsibility.
As seen above diminished responsibility can only be used as a partial defence in case if the defendant suffers from a recognised mental illness and has the lack of making reasonable or sane thinking were in loss of control there the defendant will be compared against the reasonable man , what would the reasonable man that is normal mentally and physically would do under the same level of …show more content…
This is not to be confused with murder because the defendant has a highly risky behaviour that can lead to death or serious injury but there is lack of intention, this careless conduct will be considered as criminal. Unlawful act manslaughter consists of an unlawful act, danger and causation. D must commit an unlawful , D must commit an act an omission does not count as an unlawful act , D's unlawful act must be dangerous ,D's dangerous act must cause death; The mens rea in constructive manslaughter the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant had the mens rea to commit the unlawful act
The legal definition on murder is “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”
In order for Sawyer to be convicted of Sayid’s murder it needs to be establish that the actus reus (guilty act) was present while the mens rea (guilty mind) and Sayid’s death was a result Sawyer unlawful act.
The actus reus of murder is unlawful act which results in death of another human being within the queen’s peace. The mens rea of murder is intention also known as malice aforethought there are two types of intention. Direct intended this is where the result of the person’s actions are intended, there is intent to kill is type of intention is also known as express malice aforethought. Oblique intend is where intention …show more content…
No need for immediacy. Killings those have been incited, or are in revenge or which are due to sexual.
Qualifying trigger:
S55(3) - D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another. S55(4) things done or said which (a) are extremely grave and (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged [objective].
In order to determinate if Locke can use the partial defence of loss of control these are the questions we need to ask: Did Locke have a qualifying triggers, what there anything said or done or a fear of serious violence? No, Hurley did not provoke or in any sense caused a fear of violence to Locke. This means the partial defence for loss of control has failed.
Locke could be liable for involuntary manslaughter under diminished responsibility.
As seen above diminished responsibility can only be used as a partial defence in case if the defendant suffers from a recognised mental illness and has the lack of making reasonable or sane thinking were in loss of control there the defendant will be compared against the reasonable man , what would the reasonable man that is normal mentally and physically would do under the same level of …show more content…
This is not to be confused with murder because the defendant has a highly risky behaviour that can lead to death or serious injury but there is lack of intention, this careless conduct will be considered as criminal. Unlawful act manslaughter consists of an unlawful act, danger and causation. D must commit an unlawful , D must commit an act an omission does not count as an unlawful act , D's unlawful act must be dangerous ,D's dangerous act must cause death; The mens rea in constructive manslaughter the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant had the mens rea to commit the unlawful act