The actus reus of murder in essence is the physical act of committing murder. It requires three elements. Causation, which means that something happens, and the result as for this is death. Causation itself can be split into legal causation and factual causation. The latter, follows the 'but for ' test, 'but for ' subject B being stabbed by subject A he would not have died. Legal causation is whether the act of the perpetrator was the leading cause of the victim 's death (The Open University (OU), 2015a, 2.4). The other two elements of actus reus are that there must be a death, and that the death must be of a human being.
Mens rea is the mental element of murder. It is the intention. Whether that be direct intention, which is simply the …show more content…
The Corporate manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was landmark as for the first time companies could be found guilty of manslaughter if their actions had been of negligible conduct (Heath and Safety Executive, 2015, Corporate manslaughter).
An organisation is only guilty if the conduct referred to above is both ordered by its senior management, and is substantial in the death of the person (CMA 2007).
In regards to this act, a 'gross ' breach refers to a breach of conduct that is far below what can reasonably be expected by the employees of one of the aforementioned organisations under the law of negligence (CMA 2007).
It is only referred to as corporate manslaughter if it is under the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within Scotland it is regards as corporate homicide, and companies accused of corporate homicide could only be indicted within the High Court of Justiciary, which is the criminal supreme court of Scotland. The supreme court for civil disputes for Scotland is the same as for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Supreme court (CMA …show more content…
Mr Jones satisfies the actus reus of murder (OU, 2015c, 2.3).
Mens rea follows the need for an intention. Mr Jones failing to keep records of checking the tents, nor leaving the campsite under the command of the two inexperienced employees does not foreseeably lead to death being virtually certain, consequently there was zero desire and zero intention by Mr Jones and the mens rea of murder is left unsatisfied (OU, 2015d, 2.4).
The events that led to the death of the children were unforeseen, due to extreme weather. The events and acts of Mr Jones were not satisfactory of England 's parameters surrounding the criminal offence of murder. The accusation of murder will not materialise into a guilty charge. Mr Jones should plead not guilty.
In August of 2015 Snowdonia Camping Holidays Ltd (SCH) actions lead to it being implicated in accusations of corporate manslaughter following the death of two children within the
Mens rea is the mental element of murder. It is the intention. Whether that be direct intention, which is simply the …show more content…
The Corporate manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was landmark as for the first time companies could be found guilty of manslaughter if their actions had been of negligible conduct (Heath and Safety Executive, 2015, Corporate manslaughter).
An organisation is only guilty if the conduct referred to above is both ordered by its senior management, and is substantial in the death of the person (CMA 2007).
In regards to this act, a 'gross ' breach refers to a breach of conduct that is far below what can reasonably be expected by the employees of one of the aforementioned organisations under the law of negligence (CMA 2007).
It is only referred to as corporate manslaughter if it is under the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within Scotland it is regards as corporate homicide, and companies accused of corporate homicide could only be indicted within the High Court of Justiciary, which is the criminal supreme court of Scotland. The supreme court for civil disputes for Scotland is the same as for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Supreme court (CMA …show more content…
Mr Jones satisfies the actus reus of murder (OU, 2015c, 2.3).
Mens rea follows the need for an intention. Mr Jones failing to keep records of checking the tents, nor leaving the campsite under the command of the two inexperienced employees does not foreseeably lead to death being virtually certain, consequently there was zero desire and zero intention by Mr Jones and the mens rea of murder is left unsatisfied (OU, 2015d, 2.4).
The events that led to the death of the children were unforeseen, due to extreme weather. The events and acts of Mr Jones were not satisfactory of England 's parameters surrounding the criminal offence of murder. The accusation of murder will not materialise into a guilty charge. Mr Jones should plead not guilty.
In August of 2015 Snowdonia Camping Holidays Ltd (SCH) actions lead to it being implicated in accusations of corporate manslaughter following the death of two children within the