The Main Aspects of Criminal Law

Woollin). Subjective recklessness is found when the defendant is aware of the risk involved with his action, but still does the act. (R v. Cunningham1982 AC 566)(Smith &amp. Hogan, 2006)
The possible issues in the instance of Seema are possible criminal liability flowing from the death of Derek and the defenses which she might claim in reducing her criminal liability if proved. Moving on the mistake of Dr. Wisdom and the possibility of the breaking of chain of causation will be considered. Finally the act of Arun will be considered and the subsequent death of Dr. Ali will be considered.
The actus reus of murder is still found in the wording of Sir Edward Coke, which is that the actus reus is present when the defendant "unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen’s peace’ (Smith and Hogan, 1983)
The requirement that the killing is lawful is an important aspect and so certain killings which may be as a result of use of reasonable force in self defense may be excluded (Re A 2000 4 All ER 961). Further it is necessary that the defendant accelerated the death of the victim.(Justis)
The mens rea or mental element is known by the term malice aforethought and it is general to state that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm will suffice for murder. (Vickers 1957 2 QB 664)(Koenig, 2007)
By the facts it can be stated that the actus reus and mens rea can be presumed by the fact that Seema finds the knife and stabs Derek. However the defense of provocation and diminished responsibility may be raised to get a verdict of voluntary manslaughter.
Provocation was a common law defense which has been modified by s.3 of the homicide Act 1957. The two tier questions which must be satisfied have a subjective as well as an objective element. First it must be found that did the defendant, as a result of provocation, lose his or her self control (subjective element) and would a reasonable man have done as the defendant did (Objective Element). The elements are decided upon by the jury. (Smith &amp. Hogan, 11th Edition)
The subjective question is purely a matter of fact and requires a sudden and temporary loss of control along with cumulative provocation and that the loss of self control must be as a result of provocation. There must be a loss of self control as a result of the provocation and so the defence will not be available where it is found that it was a calculated revenge. The classic formulation can be found in Duffy [1949] where it was stated that the sudden and temporary loss of self control made the defendant at that moment not master of his mind. However in Richens it was stated that the defendant only required proof that he was unable to restrain himself from committing the act. The longer the time interval the higher the chance of