Articles of confederation date jar

Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:10:30 PM

Articles of confederation date jar




Notesale: Turn your study into money Search for notes by fellow students, in your own course and all over the country. Browse our notes for titles which look like what you need, you can preview any of the notes via a sample of the contents. After you're happy these are the notes you're after simply pop them into your shopping cart. You have nothing in your shopping cart yet. Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above. Defence of ‘loss of control’ Assignment. LLB CRIMINAL LAW COURSEWORK The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 created the defence of ‘loss of control’. The court stated that the defence is self-contained and its common law heritage relating to the defence of provocation is now irrelevant . The loss of control (LOC) defence was introduced by sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009), in response to concerns in relation to the defence of provocation. ‘The defence articles of confederation date jar also criticised for being gender bias, in that it was too favourable to those who killed as a result of losing their temper (generally male defendants) but did not provide a response to those who killed out of a fear of serious violence (often women in domestic violence) . The LOC defence is one of the most controversial defences in English law and has received an enormous amount of academic attention . As with the old law, LOC is a partial defence, which applies only to the crime of murder. As illustrated in R v Acott5, ‘the burden of proof for the defence of LOC under the CJA 2009 reflects the previous position in respect of the defence of provocation’,6 so once the issue is raised, the legal burden rests with the prosecution who must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the elements of LOC are not satisfied. Available from. co. php [Accessed 22/10/2012] BPP Constitutional law lecture (2012), Homicide 1. bpp . 4 E-law Resources (2012), The Defence of Loss of Control (n 1) . 6 Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2012) 101 . Defence of ‘loss of control’ Assignment. reasonable man do as the defendant did (objective question)?’8 The LOC defence appears to retain the basic structure of the old law of provocation, in that under section 54 CJA 2009 a defendant may plead this defence where s/he was provoked by a qualifying trigger into losing his self-control, and a person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in Essay writers wanted cheap circumstances of the defendant, might have reacted in the same or in similar way as the defendant did. Under the old law, it had to be shown that the loss of self-control was ‘sudden and temporary’. The requirement of a sudden and temporary loss of control was criticised as favouring men, who may be more likely to react spontaneously to provoking words or conduct, and also for disadvantaging women, who may be more likely to react to this ‘slow burn’ principle, such as with victims of domestic violence. 1)11, unless at the time that the defendant killed, s/he suddenly and temporarily lost control . However, the CJA 2009 in direct contrast, states that under section 54(2), there is no requirement that the LOC be sudden. ‘Although the aim is to accommodate women suffering from the battered woman syndrome, this is not a specific requirement, therefore the circumstances under which this defence may apply are likely to be wider than under the older defence of provocation essay questions dulce et decorum est. ’16 ‘Evidence of planning an attack or a significant delay between the provoking words/act and the killing, negated the spontaneity essential for the defence of provocation essay questions dulce et decorum est. This upholds the principle seen in R v Ibrams and Gregory18 . Also, the distinction between. BPP Constitutional law lecture (2012), Homicide 1 (n 2) . 10 Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 104 . 12 Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 104 . 14 Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 105. Available from. com/blog/loss-of-control . 17 Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 103 . 19 Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 104 . Nevertheless, section 54(2) CJA 2009 ‘removes the confusion over whether a sudden LOC essay on the theme of friendship be reconciled with a delay between the provocation and the killing. ’21 ‘Under the old law, provocation was available if the defendant lost control as a result of something ‘said or done’. The CJA 2009 has greatly narrowed the law . The first trigger, the need to fear serious violence, is a significant departure from the old law where almost anything could amount to provocation and form essay questions dulce et decorum est basis of that defence, as illustrated in R v Davies23. If this case were to come before the courts today, the defendant would not be able to raise the defence of LOC under this trigger . ‘One issue that greatly troubled the courts in the old law of provocation were cases where a victim of domestic violence had killed their abusive spouse’26, such as in Ahluwalia. ’27 ‘The new law extends the remit of the defence to cover situations in which previously only a complete defence of self-defence was available. However, such an argument may now be available. Legal Norms (2010), The New Partial Defence of Loss of Control (n 15) . Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (n 3) 246 . 24 (1986) 83 Cr App R 31 . 26 Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (n 3) 251 . 28 Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 106 . Defence of ‘loss of control’ Assignment. under the new law’30, but the defence of LOC is excluded where the defendant was the initial aggressor (section 55(6)(a)), whereas the same is not true of self-defence . The second qualifying trigger, a ‘justifiable sense of being seriously wronged’ must come from something said or done, which leads to the feeling on the part of the defendant, amounting to ‘circumstances of an extremely grave character’ articles of confederation date jar 55(4)(a)). Therefore, one might conclude that this was a circumstance of extremely grave character, causing her to feel justifiably wrong. ‘Previously, whether things said or done were sufficient to amount to provocation was left to the jury entirely and the judge would only try and explain the objective and subjective test. This change is based on the view that in a civilised society there can be no excuse for killing due to infidelity, therefore, in the case of Davies this defence would no longer be available to the defendant. ’35 In R v Clinton; R v Parker; R v Evans36 the court considered the full extent of the prohibition against ‘sexual infidelity’ as a qualifying trigger. ’37 The term ‘sexual infidelity’ is narrow, so it would not cover comments about a partner’s sexual performance, but the courts will still need to consider what counts as infidelity . It replaces the old law, were the jury was five paragraph essay on romeo and juliet to consider whether a reasonable man, would have acted as the defendant did under such provocation . E-law Resources (2012), The Defence of Loss of Control (n 1) . 33 [1995] 4 All ER 1008 . 35 E-law Resources (2012), The Defence of Loss of Control (n 1) . 37 Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (n 3) 248. ’38 The objective approach does not take into account the defendant’s actual characteristics . The old law was subject to much conflicting interpretation in the courts. ’43 ‘After Camplin, the age and sex of the defendant were the only ‘control’ characteristics that could be taken into account, whereas there was no limit on ‘gravity’ characteristics that might be considered. ’46 In R v Morhall47, the defendant’s drug addiction was held to be ‘gravity’ characteristic, so it could be considered by the jury in deciding the effect that the provocation would have on a person with ordinary powers of control, who shares such characteristics of the defendant. However, had the victim taunted the defendant about his mental disability, then it would have been a ‘gravity’ characteristic, a factor which the jury would consider. This was confirmed in R v Weller51, whereby both the circumstances and characteristics of the defendant can be accounted . The old law attracted widespread criticism, as it was felt that the objective standard had been significantly relaxed in deciding if the defendant’s conduct is excusable . Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 109 . 43 Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 109 . 49 Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 111 . 51 [2003] EWCA Crim 815 . Defence of ‘loss of control’ Assignment. Privy Council wanted to resolve the issue of the objective element of the law relating to provocation and clarify the present state of English law . This would apply to a case such as Doughty. ‘The reference to tolerance is designed to deal with cases where the defendant regards actions as particularly provocative because of his or her intolerant belief’55. If Van Dongen56, was heard under the new law, ‘even if a jury were persuaded that a reasonable person would have lost control, they might not be persuaded that the reasonable person would have attacked the victim in such a prolonged manner’57. ‘This means that what might appear to be a minor wrong, when seen in the light of the history of the event, is in fact a grave wrong. Such an approach was taken in R v Thornton (No . ‘Under the new law, the jury are required to consider how a person of the defendant’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted. ’61 ‘Section 54(1)(c) CJA 2009 reflects the law preferred in Holley, a reversion to the position after Camplin, so that only age and sex of the defendant can be taken into account in assessing the degree of tolerance and self-control to be expected of the defendant . The new act has maintained some of the features from the old common law, such as the burden of proof and that the defendant must have lost self-control . Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (n 3) 249 . 58 Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (n 3) 250 . 60 [1996] 2 ALL ER 1023 . 62 Monaghan, Criminal Law: Directions (n 6) 109 . Defence of ‘loss of control’ Assignment. provocation and murder out of revenge. ‘However, the way the act does so, by adding a completely new defence, only marginally different from the defence of self defence, creates additional uncertainty. 66. Furthermore, the case of Clinton, articles of confederation date jar stirred up issues in relation to kung fu panda skadoosh infidelity being a. permissible feature of the LOC defence, despite the CJA 2009 stating that it should be disregarded. The new defence appears to make clear that only age and sex can affect the essay questions dulce et decorum est of tolerance and self-restraint expected. ’67 The third element of the defence, is thus perhaps more generous to defendants under CJA 2009’. 69. Legal Norms (2010), The New Partial Defence of Loss of Control (n 15) . 66 Withey C, ‘Loss of Control, Loss of Opportunity?’, (2011) Criminal Law Review 263 67 Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (n 3) 303 . 69 Legal Norms (2010), The New Partial Defence of Loss of Control (n 15). I have essay questions dulce et decorum est and fully understood the provisions relating to unfair practices (including plagiarism) as cited on the VLE . Norris A, ‘The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 – partial defences to murder’, (2010) Criminal Law Review 275 Withey C, ‘Loss of Control, Loss of Opportunity?’, (2011) Criminal Law Review 263 Case Law: Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23 Bedder v DPP [1954] 1 WLR 1119 Luc Thiet Thuan v R [1997] AC 131 R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889 R v Camplin [1978] AC 705 R v Clinton; R v Parker; R v Evans [2012] EWCA Crim 2 R v Davies [1975] QB 691 R v Doughty (1986) 83 Cr App R 31 R v Dryden [1995] All ER 987 R v Humphreys [1995] 4 All ER 1008 R v Ibrams and Gregory (1982) 74 Cr App R 154 8.

Current Viewers: