Case Solution : Was Offence Made Out?

Offences – Murder, as stated in section 3 of the Crimes Act 1958, and Common law. In addiction to this Bayley was convicted by the supreme court of Australia to the charged of rape in relation with section 38 of the crimes act 1958. (Supreme Court of Victoria, 2013)

State of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] 212 CLR 511, 536 per Gleeson CJ.

This crime does not fit Capital Murder. Capital Murder is murder involving Police Officers, firefighters, or a paramedic. Manslaughter is a crime of killing a human without malice aforethought, circumstances not amounting to murder. Criminally Negligent Homicide is a criminal charge brought against a person who through criminal negligence, allows another person to die. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. That’s exactly what Scott

Killing another is nowhere near “justifiable”. Imagine this, someone close to you is framed for a murder they didn’t commit. If your state had the death penalty, they could be punished for nothing. There are many other situations when killing another is unacceptable and wrong. Killing someone takes away the meaning of their life. It will hurt those around them and those close to them. We were all put on this Earth for a reason and everyone should be able to achieve the goals they want to in their life. Whether it’s capital punishment, euthanasia,or the case of George and Lennie, killing others is an unjustifiable act.

Murder is defined as an unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.

Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say—

Police have the power to investigate crimes, make arrests, interrogate suspects and gather evidence against the accused. Using their powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (2002) (NSW), police arrested Jessica Silva on the day she committed the offence, 13 May 2012 as they had reasonable grounds to suspect she committed the murder. She was shortly charged with the murder of James Polkinghorne. Police then conducted an interrogation which was recorded in an ERISP of an interview with the accused. The offence was most likely reported on the day by the accused or an eyewitness and Silva was immediately taken into custody. This report most likely came from calling the police on the emergency 000 number. The police also used their powers to investigate the crime in order to be sufficient enough to present a case against the accused in court. The gathering of evidence in this case involved the taking of eye witness statements, statements from those involved including Silva, her brother and her father, and taking photos of the crime scene. It is important that this evidence is obtained carefully and not tampered with, otherwise it would be inadmissible. The police have used technology in investigating the crime through the phone tapping of Polkinghorne’s phone, and the seizing of the SMS messages sent between Silva and Polkinghorne prior to the murder. The phone taps were admissible as they were obtained legally with a warrant, despite being for the investigation of a separate offence. The police were allowed to arrest and detain Silva on the 13 May 2012 because they had reasonable grounds that she committed the illegal offence. The police must issue her a caution, stating why they have arrested her and that if she were to say something it could be used in court against her. The interrogation or asking of questions was

John Q analyzed the issue at stake very candidly. His son needed a heart transplant or else he was going to die but he did not have enough funds to provide for his son’s transplant. He could either watch his son die or do something drastic to save him. He chose to abduct patients in the hospital to use them as a bait for negotiation therefore he perceived the negotiation as an exchange. Whether or not he acted in whatsoever manner, there was a possibility he would lose his son, so he decided to act in faith in the possibility of saving Michael because this negotiation was a necessity to him. He viewed the negotiation situation through an outcome frame, which was of more importance to him and so he needed an agreement to be reached between him and the police. He knew the situation was a one shot negotiation so he was not interested in building and

What does the prosecution need to prove in the courtroom for a person to be convicted of a criminal offence? (2 marks)

2. Case Facts: On October 13, 1979, George Schnopps fatally shot his wife of 14 years. The victim and schnopps began having marital problems six months prior, when schnopps became suspicious that his wife was seeing another man. A few days prior to the incident, Schnopps threatened to make his wife suffer. On October 12, 1979 while at work asked a coworker to buy him a gun, telling the worker that he had been receiving threatening phone calls. Schnopps paid his coworker for the gun and ammunition. On the day of the incident, Schnopps told a neighbor he was going to call his wife and have her come pick up some things, and asked if them to keep the youngest child with her so he could talk to with his wife. When the wife went over Schnopps tried to convince his wife to stay with him, in response the wife made some vulgar comments which triggered Schnopps. He then shot her and then shot himself. Shortly after he called the neighbor and told her what had happened and she called the police. The defense offered evidence from friends and coworkers who noticed difference in Schnopps physical and emotional health after the victim had left him. The Commonwealth’s expert

This report will analyse the role, principles and responsibilities of the Investigators in the McLeod-Lindsay case, it will describe how the legal boundaries and operational requirements were applied and detailing the legal procedures that were applied. Also including evidence and factors that brought about the pardon and the problems that the case highlights for the adversary system and its use of evidence.

If I were to ask you if killing someone is justifiable, some will answer with a strong no and others like me might say it depends on what they did. However, that is a job for the police to investigate and figure out. No human being kills another without some sort of

The Supreme Court case, R v Vollmer[8], states that the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto partner – where evidence as to the deceased’s past violent history in a previous relationship was available at the time of trial but not relied on by defence counsel – where there was no evidence led at trial or on appeal of a history of violence between the appellant and the deceased – where the appellant sought to rely on the defences of self-defence and provocation at trial under sections 271(2), 304 and 668E(1)[9]. Where the cases R v Hajistassi[10], R v Mogg[11] and Re Knowles[12] were applied as precedent to the final decision of the case.

No issue posed by capital punishment is more disturbing to the public than the prospect that the government might execute innocent people. Proponents to the death penalty are, of course, also against executing an innocent person (Hook and Kahn 91). Most everyone would agree that killing someone is wrong. Proponents and opponents agree that murder is a heinous act and should be punished. Despite their hatred for those who kill, proponents support the killing of murderers as a just punishment for their deviant behaviors. In this sense, execution can be termed, “legal murder” because “executions shares enough of the characteristics of murder to be counted as part of the general category: it includes a victim who does not want to die, and an agent that nonetheless kills [the victim]” (Yanich 98]. Murder is synonymous with kill, as found in the Britannica- Webster Dictionary. To kill is to deprive one of life or to put one to death and murder implies motive and intent or premeditation. With respect