Criminal Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Criminal Law - bear witness ExampleIt was held that in determining whether or not the defendant lost his/her self-control, the jury may treat that are not confined to the defendants age and gender.6 Therefore Douglas, having just returned from a languish road trip and having found his young wife in bed with his neighbour may be mitigating detailors. Douglas appears to have been in total control however. He went to a pub which might indicate that the mishap did not provoke him to such an extent that he lost control and acted in the heat of passion. However, by virtue of Section 54(2) of the 2009 the loss of self-control element does not have to be sudden.7 Therefore the fact that Douglas went to a pub after finding his wife in bed with the neighbour prior to sharp the neighbour will not be a factor in his defence of provocation. The most earthshaking problem for Douglas is proving that the stabbing was not an act of penalise. According to Section 54(4), Section 54(1) will no t collapse if D acted in a considered desire for revenge.8 However, since the 2009 sour fails to define what is a considered desire for revenge this part of the provocation defence is difficult to assess at this time. It may be that Douglas intoxication may act as evidence that he was not acting in revenge since the word considered tends to signify that some thought and preparation preceded the act. The ultimate test for Douglas is provided for under Section 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Section 55 provides that the qualify trigger is satisfied if things that were said and/or done were of an extremely fleshy character and caused D to have a justifiable know of being seriously wronged.9 In this cypher, having returned lieu from a long road trip and finding his young wife in bed with the neighbour may be considered conduct of a seriously grave character to justify a sense of being seriously wronged. Unfortunately, Section 55(c) will deprive Douglas of this defence because, infidelity is not a qualifying trigger. 10 Douglas will therefore not be able to use the provocation defence by virtue of Section 54 of the 2009 Act. The defence of intoxication relies on distinguishing between being drunk and intoxicated. For congressman an individual may be drunk when he/she commits a criminal act that he/she would not otherwise commit in a sober state. However, the defence of intoxication is not available if the mens rea for the criminal offense charged was formed while the defendant was drunk.11 As the court cautioned in Sheehan, a drunken aspiration is nevertheless an intent.12 The court went on to state that The jury should merely be instructed to have regard to all the evidence, including that relating to drink, to draw such inferences as they think proper from the evidence, and on that basis to ask themselves whether they feel sure that at the material time the defendant had the requisite intent.13 This ruling is very important to Douglass defenc e of intoxication. This means that the jury is entitled to take into consideration the facts and circumstances occurring prior to Douglas