Law Relating to Murder Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Law Relating to Murder - Essay ExampleThe actus reus of Murder therefore requires that the defendant should hand caused the death of the victim through an act of his/her own. closing should be caused within the Queens peace and three years of the act of the defendant. In this question the defendant Zak has cut downed Julie. Murder is a consequence crime and therefore therefore requires actor to be proved in order for the actus reus of murder to be proved. It is in essence proving that it was the act of the defendant that caused the death of the victim. Causation is a 2-stage turn out and requires firstly causation in fact. The test for causation in fact is the But for test (but for the act of the defendant, would the victim still have suffered the consequences and if not then(prenominal) there is causation in fact). The element that has to be proved is that it was the act of the defendant that put the victim in a certain setting in which he would not have been but for the act o f the defendant. In this instance it is not difficult to prove causation in fact, as had it not been the act of Zak, Julie would not have died. Once causation in fact is proved the second test of causation has to be satisfied.The second stage of the causation test is causation in law. ... In this question it seems that in relation to death of Julie there is causation in law as the act of Zak was the operative and substantial cause of Julies death. uncomplete had the act of Zak exhausted its effect and further it was also the signifi give noticet and sole cause of Julies death. It seems therefore that the actus reus of the offence of murder is proved as Julie dies in the good time and the place of his death is within the Queens peace. Mens rea for the Murder or the lack thereofThis takes us to the next issue in the question, whether Zak had the requisite mens rea for murder. The mens rea for murder is intention to kill (express bitterness) or cause grievous bodily harm (implied ma lice). Traditionally the mens rea for murder is called malice aforethought. In Smith & Hogan Criminal Law 9th Edition malice aforethought has been defined as a mere arbitrary symbol for the malice may have in it nothing really malicious and need never be really aforethought. Therefore the requirement today is that the defendant should have intended either death or grievous bodily harm as a result of his/her act. Malice aforethought is generally taken to mean that the defendant should have intention to bring about either of those two consequences. Intention can be defined as the either the purpose of the defendants act or even if it not the purpose of the defendants act, intention can be inferred from certain indwelling foresight on part of the defendant. In other words if the defendant realizes that the consequences are virtually certain as a result of his act then the courts can hold that the defendant intended the consequences as a result of his act. The problem here is that Men s Rea for this murder seems doubtful as it has been stated in the question.