Law as : Criminal Liability of Jonty and Patrick Offences Against the Persons Act

When Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was take from hospital to Sutherland police station he was interviewed/ interrogated like a suspect as the case had been turn to a sexual assault case and he was told that, “in the case of assault upon a wife, we always check out the husband’s story first”, (McLeod-Lindsay, A, 1984). Another role of investigators is to collect evidence. The police had bought a change of clothing for Alexander McLeod- Lindsay, so that they can take the clothes that he had wearing as evidence. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had now become the suspect of sexually assaulting and attempting to murder his wife and son. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was found guilty of attempted murder due to the circumstantial evidence that was bought forward before the jury such as the blood splatter that was on the wall and blood stains found on the accused Alexander McLeod-Lindsay’s clothing. Despite the fact that there was no form of direct evidence such as someone eye witnessing the incident or even to point the finger that Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had committed the attempted murder of his wife and 4 year old son Bruce, the jury still convicted him of committing the offence, all based on circumstantial evidence. This highlights that Alexander McLeod-Lindsay experienced miscarriage of justice due to the fact the jury based their decision on the circumstantial evidence of blood stains that were found on Alexander

The need for partial defence in murder cases has evolved through the common law and statue, in consideration of the weaknesses of the human mind to take control when faced with provocation and the challenges created by mental illness, which may result to serious violent. Court in England and Wales have experienced several difficulties in defining what “intention” (human mind) is in order to establish conviction for murder (R v Molony) 1985. This essay will therefore, discuss the need for partial defences to murder as “a buffer against the harsh effect of the mandatory life sentence for all cases of murder” in England and Wales.

Below is the memorandum for the negligence action regarding our client, Mr. Ragnarr Loobrok. To succeed in a claim of negligence, it must be proven that, on the balance of probabilities, that a duty of care was owed by the State of Victoria to prevent him from getting arrested once his bail conditions had been formally changed.

A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.

Prompt 1) Discuss and characterize the differences between committing a crime purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently (be sure to use examples and to distinguish clearly, in particular, between acting knowingly and acting recklessly). Given this analysis, what might explain why we blame a purposeful crime more than a reckless one?

The statutory standard of care for professionals such as teachers can be found in s 22 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) which states that

Fiona Burch with her two kids (plaintiff) claims a case against shire of YR, and a company of quality roads pvt ltd as they are responsible death of the Michael on basis of defendants caused the break of his duty and responsibility.

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

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.

Question 4 - Assess the use of the defence of provocation in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. (10 marks)

Lo Surdo, A. (2008) The latest word from the High Court on vicarious liability, LAW SOCIETY JOURNAL, September 45 (8), pp.64-65.

Peter John was brought up with the FBI in his bloodstream. John’s father, as well as his uncle, was regarded as high ranking officials in the FBI. His brother also joined the FBI. It has been established that, while still young, Peter John engaged in playing in the office of J. Edgar Hoover. Therefore, there would have been no expectation that during the early hours of the morning of 1st August 2007, a team of the FBI agents who were heavily armed would roust John and his family from bed with a search warrant and seized computers among other personal belongings. His alleged crime was that he engaged in leaking information regarding the fact that the government was taking part in spying on its own people, against the law.

This topic raises the question of whether Willow and Xander are held criminally liable for Larry’s death by assessing the possible offences and defences that may apply. In order to decide the extent of their criminal liability, if any, a number of criteria need to be considered.

In England, the law has tried to deal with the inadequacies and criticism of the dеfеncе of diminished responsibility through the reformation of the law on diminished responsibility in section 2 of the Homicide Act. As a result, England has a new definition for the dеfеncе of diminished responsibility which has done away with the controversial element of ‘abnormality of the mind’ and has introduced the element of ‘abnormality of mental functioning’. The new definition of the dеfеncе states that, the defendant must prove that he or she suffered from an abnormality of mental functioning, arising from a recognised medical condition, which provides an explanation for committing the killing, it must be proved that the abnormality substantially

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.