Can Assist You Further

Thank you for coming to see us about your situation. I would like to straightaway address the first issue in question that rises Mr. Turnbull is the idea that the court draws a heavy difference in between the concept of manslaughter and murder. Both the concepts are covered under the purview of homicide per se but the gravity of both the crimes have been discussed widely throughout multiple cases. Murder as per Section 18 of the Crimes Act, 1900 defines as the crime that is committed by a person who is of sound mind at the time of commission of the crime and deals in the commission of unlawfully taking the life of another person with utmost understanding and intention in order to cause grievous bodily harm to the person. This crime is said to considered to portray an indifference posed by the offender with extreme recklessness towards human life. This kind of crime is generally punishable with an imprisonment of 25 years or more. However, the conditions of manslaughter can vary even though it falls within the concept of homicide. It could be either a voluntary or an involuntary action. If the act has no malicious intent or can be supported by sufficient lawful reasons that shall not be constituted as manslaughter. Gross negligence is one of the most important criteria for an act to be considered manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter was primarily introduced by the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009 in substitution of the of an age old common law practice wherein the defence of provocation reached. It hall include sufficient dilution of responsibility of the actor and no control. However, involuntary manslaughter shall include the occurrence of death of a person of another man but that action was not backed by any intention to kill or cause any sort of bodily harm. There are multiple other kinds of manslaughter which was either a result of medical action, negligent acts or any unlawful act. Two other legislations were introduced in 2007 being the Corporate Manslaughter and the Corporate Homicide Act to deal with any murder or killing of corporate nature. There were many significant changes made in the last decade with regard to murder itself. Out of which a famous and much discussed Supreme Court case R v Jogee reiterated the joint enterprise doctrine which was followed by a shift in vision and perspective and the attitude that forced a decision made by the judges. The age old idea to the mandatory life sentences shall be changed and replaced with a much more diverse outlook. This has seen to be in the light of defendant’s advantage. For anyone seeking further assistance, law dissertation help can provide valuable insights into these complex issues.

BCL is perceived as a market chief by and large and genuine wrongdoing. We have broad involvement with speaking to people blamed for the most genuine offenses and consistently act in cases including charges of homicide and murder. With solid connects to the most experienced and searched after lawyers and specialists, we give bespoke and expert portrayal from the beginning phases of an examination, through to the finish of the court cycle.

2. If Mr Turnbull insists to you that he was provoked by the behavior of the deceased, Mr Turner and says to you, "You can't tell a man what he can do on his own farm. I can do what I like." Explain to Mr. Turnbull whether the defence of provocation is available to him.

The Section 23(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides that an ordinary person does have the defence of provocation which if triggers the offender to an extent to lose self control which then forces him to take an action so grave that may result in death of another person or atleast cause grievous bodily harm which is a basic test or known as the objective test in order for the defence of provocation to be applicable.

However, it is an extremely controversial form which have been requested to be abolished by many jurisdictions. The main test that was laid down in Stingel's case was “The ordinary person's perception of the gravity of the provocation; the ordinary person's power to exercise self-control in response to that provocation; and the form of the ordinary person's response after losing self-control in comparison to the accused's response”

As per S.23 of the abovementioned Act, if a person who has been charged with murder on trial has committed the act of murder due to some extreme provocation which in this case cannot really substantiate as the Mr. Turner and Mr. Strange were acting in capacity of public officials which was a result of their occupation and not their personal judgment. It also constitutes a significant factor as must be taken into account in determining sentence for the s.86 offence committed against Mr Strange: s.21A(2)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Especially in this regard, the murder of a public official to be considered as provocation which was a mere duty is extremely serious and has been previously determined in many cases

In your case Mr. Turnbull, the question of provocation was merely verbal and did not constitute a grave form of provocation that could be used as a suitable defence that could deny all charges of manslaughter against you.

3. Mr Turnbull says to you, "Well, I want to make sure we've covered all bases. Tell me what other defences I might have.” Explain what other defences exist, and whether any of those defences might be available to him.

The defences that can be considered are mainly the question of mental stability which can provide you with a lesser charge of manslaughter and not be booked under murder which can be substantiated by reason of “Sufficient impairment” and chronic abnormality of mind that has forced you to take such an extreme step can only be justified. It can be contended that at the time of commission of the crime you were under severe stress and suffering from chronic depression. Sufficient reliance on friends and family such a virtue since you are in continuous assessment by Dr. Nielssen and Professor Greenberg. If we can get the psychiatrists to testify and offer suitable proof of your distressed mental condition which was the sole reason to turbulent your judgment and impaired your capacity to reason and make sense or conduct yourself or commit any action that may have aggravated the cause of action without determining the consequences that may follow. Eventually forced in a loss of self control and the statement by the deceased cause some sort of provocation which in a normal state of mind would not have been affected such grievously. It was a simple lapse of judgment between right and wrong could help him defend his stand. The variables so influencing the denounced's psychological state must be appeared to comprise either incitement, reduced obligation, or child murder Crimes Act ss.22A, 23, and 23A. These are known as the fractional protections to kill and require confirmation of some type of mental debilitation or loss of discretion which altogether influenced the blamed's culpability at the ideal opportunity for the executing.

The question of having a prior good character up until 79 years of age could provide a clean stated impression and help satisfy the case that you have no prior malicious intent or a person executing any rash judgment for that matter. It can also be established that your family and your friends provide a solid support to him.

Your general health at this age could play in as a factor as you are suffering from adjustment disorder or your admission in the long Bay Hospital Wing, your daily intake of medication and the general notion that a person of this age may make a lapse of judgment. This ofcourse does not free him of his guilt but can diminish the onus of responsibility and charge him for a lesser offence of manslaughter.

The Director prosecutes for the Crown (that is, the network) under the Overseer of Public Prosecutions Act 1986. The person is capable to the Attorney General for the due exercise of the elements of the workplace, however acts autonomously of the legislature and of political impact. The Director additionally acts freely of improper individual or sectional interests in the network and of wrong impact by the media. An investigator is a "pastor of equity". Staff of the ODPP and Crown Prosecutors do their obligations in consistence with the Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Obligations and Rights of Prosecutors proclaimed by the International Association of Examiners. An investigator isn't qualified for go about as though speaking to private premiums in prosecution. An examiner speaks to the network and no individual or sectional intrigue. An examiner acts autonomously, yet in the overall population intrigue. The "public intrigue" is to be perceived in that setting as a chronicled continuum: recognizing obligations to past ages and commitments to people in the future. In Moss v Brown the concept of fairness executed by the prosecutor is highlighted upon.

The improved guidelines deal with all aspect of prosecution be it privacy, appeals, disclosure, expedition, immunities, induced statements etc. The protocol do not encourage any kind of proceedings against a police officer and requests for advice received from police in specialist investigative agencies. As per the Protocol between the ODPP and the NSW Police Force, counsel will be given as set out beneath in regard of issues: that are carefully indictable; that include charges of kid rape; that are indictable offenses where the ODPP may practice its tact to choose to continue on arraignment: however these issues must be alluded to the ODPP for a choice as to purview before exhortation will be given. The new amendments and stringent rules in place make it difficult to surpass the consequences of your action as a mere retaliation to some action or remarks stated by the public authority who was acting within the power and limitation of the police officials. These rules as per the guideline could make it harder and difficult to substantiate your standpoint.

The defences pointed out could help in reducing the gravity of the offence when the offence was committed since it was a mental distress that was enforced on you. The past records having a neat character as well as the factor of age shall be counted in and could be played out to atleast limit your offence from murder to manslaughter. The circumstances and the due stress had forced you to take such an action and therefore it is assumed that the above situations may help substantiate your case.

If you still have any enquiries in relation to any of the matters raised in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Looking for further insights on Call Radical Changes Intervention And Policy? Click here.

REFERENCES

• Murder & Manslaughter , BCL Solicitors LLP,
• [2016] UKSC 8
• Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312
• Peter Zahra SC, “Partial Defences to Murder, Provocation and Diminished Responsibility “
• R v Ngo (No. 3) [2001] NSWSC 1021; 125 A Crim R 495 at 501-502 [29]-[31]; Ngo v R [2013] NSWCCA 142; 233 A Crim R 121 at 126-127 [23].