Handbook Proposal Abstract introduction Literature Review outline swot分析法 pest分析法 pestel analysiscase study Methodology Reference 论文题目选题
返回首页

谋杀共同刑事责任|案例研究 Joint Criminal Liability for Murder|Case Study

时间:2018-05-24 09:05来源:www.ukthesis.org 作者:英国论文网 点击联系客服: 客服:Damien
这一任务将试图通过牵涉到争辩和获取、协助和教唆、附带责任、非法杀害的主要主题来分析对可能的谋杀罪的所有当事人造成更大刑事责任的较小刑事责任。身体伤害(死亡)和因果关系。
通过案例研究分析安迪、马修斯和吉米之间的共同刑事责任
安迪和马修是否都是区分刑事责任的主要犯罪人?
 
Introduction:简介
This assignment will attempt to analyse lesser criminal liabilities leading up to stronger criminal liabilities for all parties involved in a possible conviction of murder by focussing on the major themes of contending and procuring, aiding and abetting, accessory liability, unlawful killing, grievous bodily harm (death resulting) and causation.
 
Joint Criminal Liability between Andy, Matthew & Jimmy
Are both Andy and Matthew equally principal offenders for the purpose of distinguishing criminal liability?
 
Criminal liability
A person who commits the acts which form whole or part of the actus reus of the crime is known as a ‘principal in the first degree”: Osland v R (1998) [1]
 
It can be derived from the facts that both Andy and Matthew were present at the scene to carry out a joint criminal enterprise: Tangye (1997) [2] as there was an express agreement: Tangye (1997) [3]made between the two to seize the managers of large supermarkets in their homes and force them to return to their supermarkets and open the safes. On the facts it cannot be established that derivative liability exists between the two or any failure to agree to such actions is present: Osland v R (1998) [4]rather an “acting in concert” which may create the effect of equally placing responsibility on each individual for the acts of the other: R v Lowery and King (No.2) (1972) [5]
 
Both Andy and Matthew may be charged with Conspiracy under S.321 to commit and offence does this extend to Jimmy?
 
Conspiracy
Andy puts his plans to Mathew who agrees to take part in the robberies, for a percentage of the proceeds under S.321 of the crimes Act 1958 this agreement made between Andy and Matthew resulted in the involvement and commission of the offence hence may lead to a finding of guilt in conspiracy to commit that offence. Does this apply to Jimmy's level of involvement?
 
Actus Reus
Conspiracy has been defined as an agreement to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means”:R V Jones (1832) [6] there is clearly no question of dispute that both Andy and Mathew decided that the best way of making quick money was to execute the agreed criminal act. To establish contravention of s.321 it may be inferred that Jimmy's conduct of providing a “safe house' intentionally perverted the course of Justice or intended to pervert the administration of public justice: James v. Robinson (1963) [7] hence making Jimi a complicit in the commission of a crime.(责任编辑:cinq)


------分隔符-------------------------------------
UK Thesis Base Contacts
推荐内容

Europe (24-hours)
EN:13917206902
china (24-hours)
CN:13917206902
在线客服团队
全天候24小时在线客服 QQ:1455780998

微信在线客服(24小时)

微信公众订阅号