The Criminal Liability Of John

This event was a very unfortunate tragedy, although it was used as an opportunity to create a new legal precedent which determines whether or not a child can be convicted for crimes though to be classified as an ‘adult crime’, for example, manslaughter. Doli incapax, assumes that any child aged 10-14 is incapable of criminal intent unless proven otherwise.

Keli Lane-Contemporary Criminal Case Original case citation: R V Keli Lane (2011) NSWSC 298, 15 April 2011, Whealy JA (1) Appeal citation : R V Keli Lane (2013) NSWCCA 317, 13 December 2013(1) Elements of the offence: Actus Reus: Keli Lane was found guilty of murder and three counts of false swearing.

However, due to this idea of strict liability offences not requiring proof of fault leads to the simple moral claim of ‘is it right to punish a person who had no intent to commit a crime, and took precautions not to let anyone get harmed in any way, to still be convicted?’ This opens the argument against the use of strict liability as it suggests that no matter what the opposing says, strict liability is a criminal offence and it is not vigorously enforced. This in turn lowers the respect to law and the criminal justice system as it appears that the justice system cannot

Currently if a D aged 18 or over is convicted of murder, the judge must pass a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. For offenders aged 10-17 found guilty of murder, the judge must order that they are detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. The fact the sentencing is mandatory and the judge has no discretion leaves a lack of ability to sentence according to blameworthiness, unlike all other offences which have discretion in sentencing; Gotts. This lack of differentiation between blameworthiness is further emphasised by the Government’s sentencing guidelines laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Under this act in cases of murders of police officers or murders involving firearms D should receive a 30 year sentence. However, in cases like that of Martin (Anthony) such a sentence would appear unjust.

Crime and punishment wasn't as easy in the 1800s as it is now. This research paper will inform you about the crime and punishment in the 1800s.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

The first reason Billy should not have punched John is because of the possible risk. When John knowingly and wrongfully accused Billy, Billy’s first instinct to express his wrath was to punch John. However, being unnaturally strong as Billy was, punching John could result in either his injury, violence, or

Discuss the potential criminal liability of Jonty and Patrick for the non-fatal offences against the person, including any relevant defences (50 marks)

Currently each state and territory in Australia has its own individual legislation concerning juvenile crime. All state and territory laws do not conform to the Conventions on the Right of the Child and it is crucial that these laws are amended to better protect juveniles. The most effective reform that could be made is for each state and territory to amend their individual legislations to increase the minimum age to be criminally responsible from 10 to 12 with the doli incapax doctrine still being applied. Although it has been acknowledged that under the common law doctrine doli incapax, children between 10 and 14 are only criminally responsible if the individual is mature enough to realise the consequences of their actions, this assessment is left to the judge, often without expert knowledge from a phycologist (Amnesty International, 2015). Furthermore, it is crucial for Queensland to raise their maximum age from 17 to 18. This amendment will allow Australia to keep up with international standards while reducing Aboriginal crime in areas where crime rates are

Therefore, one of the young tearaways closely associated with the bushranger Ben Hall at the commencement of his lawless career was young John Jamison/Jamieson who was born in 1845, at Yass, NSW, and was described as 5ft 2½in with red hair, a fair complexion with hazel eyes and could read and write. John Jamison was the son of William and Mary Jamison, who were married on the 9th March 1845, at Yass, New South Wales. Young John Jamieson also had the distinction of being the nephew of James Taylor, who would elope with Ben Hall's wife Bridget. John Jamison's lineage was aristocratic due to his great-grandparents, Sir Thomas Jamison and his wife Rebecca, Sir Thomas was a part of the foundation of the colony of New South Wales arriving with the

Colin Ross is known widely for the “Gun Alley Murder”, which is the story or a 12 year old getting raped and left for dead. Before the “Gun Alley Murder” even happened, Ross was charged and imprisoned for using threatening words and carrying a firearm without permission. In April of 1921, Ross and his brothers bought a wine shop and renamed it “The Australian Wine Saloon”. In his older years, Ross was charged with multiple criminal actions throughout the years of owning the saloon, one of the many chargers was for robbery. Ross told Frank Walsh to rob a customer and the proceeds would be shared between them, the customer was shot and could not tell anything to police. Walsh was sentenced to six months hard labor and Ross was acquitted of his charges.

This paper is being submitted August 11, 2013 for Professor Sheryl Prichard’s Criminal Law and Procedure course at Devry University by Jonah Colombo.

Crime may simply be referred to as an offense against the state or against morality and is punishable by law, while justice is the fairness practiced during judgment of cases usually in instances where crime has taken place. Crime and justice go hand in hand as commonly evident in a case whereby a criminal is apprehended and taken to a court of law, then a ruling of justice practiced on the case and fairness used in passing of judgments. In most governments globally, crime and justice is managed by a criminal and justice department and typically, various departments are involved. These departments may primarily include; the police, the prosecution department, the law department, the correctional

The law of conspiracy is considerably more complex and uncertain than it need be because the statutory reform of the area largely contained in Part I of the criminal law Act 1977 was only partial. As a result, there are now two types of conspiracy – statutory conspiracies governed by the 1977 Act, and an important but limited range of common law conspiracies, which were expressly retained by the act, still governed by the old common law rules, (Tomlins & King, 1992). The most recent of the conspiracies is the conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to corrupt public morals and the conspiracy to outrage public decency; statutory conspiracy entails any agreement to commit a crime