(Task 1) P1 – apply the actus reus and mens rea of murder in given
situations
M1 – analyse the law on murder in given situations
Introduction
In this assignment I am going to be applying actus reus and mens rea of
murder, within the case of Sarev v Dipak, as well as in the case of applying
and analysing the law on murder discussing Duane’s liability for the
murder of Florence. In this assignment i will also reference common law
and case examples. Overall drawing my conclusion whether Dipak is
responsible for the death of Sarev. As well as is Duane is liable for the
murder of Florence.
The law of homicide is set out in common law. The legitimate meaning of
homicide as set out by Lord Coke is 'the unlawful killings of a
reasonable creature in being under the Queen's peace, with
malice aforethought, express or implied'.
The actus reus of homicide comprises of the unlawful killing of a person in
the Queen's peace. The mens rea of homicide is malice aforethought,
express or implied which has been deciphered by the courts as
significance expectation to murder or goal to cause GBH (serious harm)
A homicide conviction conveys a mandatory life sentence. The judge
passing sentence cannot pass a lesser sentence regardless of how
alleviating the conditions of murder may be. There exist three incomplete
safeguards to kill which may lessen the conviction of homicide which
conveys a most extreme sentence of life and along these lines permits the
judge. These fractional protections are contained in the Homicide Act
Sarev owes Dipak £40,000 as the result of a gambling debt. When Sarev refuses to pay, Dipak is very angry and
decides to frighten Sarev. One night, he cuts the brake fluid pipe beneath Sarev’s car, hoping that Sarev will be
involved in a crash that will scare him into re-paying the debt. Outside Sarev’s house, there is a steep hill with a
sharp bend at the bottom. Next morning, Sarev drives down the hill but is unable to slow down as he approaches
the sharp bend. The car collides at speed with a stone wall and Sarev is critically injured and knocked
unconscious.
An ambulance arrives within ten minutes to take Sarev to hospital. The paramedics, John and Carol, who are the
crew on the ambulance, fail to close the rear door of the ambulance correctly and, as it accelerates away, the
stretcher on which Sarev is lying is thrown out on to the road. Sarev is run over and killed by a van driven by Ron
that is travelling closely behind the ambulance.
Duane and Florence have been married for eight years. Recently they have separated because Duane is drinking
heavily. Duane is depressed and has been prescribed tranquillizers by his doctor and told not to take them when
he has been drinking. Duane has taken his tranquillizers when he sees pictures of Florence with another man on
a social networking website. He has several drinks and then goes to Florence's house to confront her. Florence
says she is seeing someone who does not drink and makes her happy. Duane says, "He can't 1 | Phave
a g eyou; I'm going
to end it all". Florence replies, "You don't have the nerve". Florence shoves Duane hard. He runs into the kitchen
and grabs a carving knife. Florence laughs at him and Duane stabs her several times, killing her. He dials 999 and
when the ambulance arrives, he tells them that everything went black and he is very sorry.
, (Task 1) P1 – apply the actus reus and mens rea of murder in given
situations
M1 – analyse the law on murder in given situations
1957 and comprise of diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide-
pact.
Lord Coke – ‘The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being
under Queen’s Peace, with malice aforethought, express or
implied’
in the case of ‘R v Stone & Dobinson 1977’ in which the defendants, S
and D, were a couple who took in the person in question, S's sister, as a
guest. S had serious handicaps, being somewhat hard of hearing and
visually impaired. D had learning troubles. While remaining with the
defendants, the sister got unfit to think about herself, having since a long
time ago battled with psychological wellness issues and fixation on her
weight. D put forth a few attempts to think about her, carrying her food
and washing her with the help of a neighbour. In any case, her endeavours
were not continued and deficient, and the casualty died. The respondents
were accused of homicide.
In relation to both Duane and Dipak, we know they have both committed
an Act, not an Omission, this is because they have not taken upon a duty
such as duty of care.
The 'Unlawful killing' is the killing of a human being in self-defence or in
prevention of crime. which is against the law and the statute of Parliament.
Such example is outlined in the case of 'Re A 2000' conjoined twins (M)
and (J), were conjoined at the pelvis. Twin J was the stronger of the two,
which meant she was able to support her own life without her twin M.
however twin M was the weaker one which meant she was dependant on
her twin for life. The doctors in the hospital outlined that for twin J to
survive she would need to be separated from her twin, but this would
mean that twin M would die. They also outlined that if they keep the twins
as they are. Both twins would have at least 6 months to live and then they
would both die. The parents refused to allow the hospital to perform a
surgery. And so, the hospital had to go to the court to ask for a declaration
that they can perform the surgery as it would be classed a 'Murder' if they
did not perform the surgery. And so, the hospital was given the declaration
to perform the surgery with twin J surviving.
2|Page
situations
M1 – analyse the law on murder in given situations
Introduction
In this assignment I am going to be applying actus reus and mens rea of
murder, within the case of Sarev v Dipak, as well as in the case of applying
and analysing the law on murder discussing Duane’s liability for the
murder of Florence. In this assignment i will also reference common law
and case examples. Overall drawing my conclusion whether Dipak is
responsible for the death of Sarev. As well as is Duane is liable for the
murder of Florence.
The law of homicide is set out in common law. The legitimate meaning of
homicide as set out by Lord Coke is 'the unlawful killings of a
reasonable creature in being under the Queen's peace, with
malice aforethought, express or implied'.
The actus reus of homicide comprises of the unlawful killing of a person in
the Queen's peace. The mens rea of homicide is malice aforethought,
express or implied which has been deciphered by the courts as
significance expectation to murder or goal to cause GBH (serious harm)
A homicide conviction conveys a mandatory life sentence. The judge
passing sentence cannot pass a lesser sentence regardless of how
alleviating the conditions of murder may be. There exist three incomplete
safeguards to kill which may lessen the conviction of homicide which
conveys a most extreme sentence of life and along these lines permits the
judge. These fractional protections are contained in the Homicide Act
Sarev owes Dipak £40,000 as the result of a gambling debt. When Sarev refuses to pay, Dipak is very angry and
decides to frighten Sarev. One night, he cuts the brake fluid pipe beneath Sarev’s car, hoping that Sarev will be
involved in a crash that will scare him into re-paying the debt. Outside Sarev’s house, there is a steep hill with a
sharp bend at the bottom. Next morning, Sarev drives down the hill but is unable to slow down as he approaches
the sharp bend. The car collides at speed with a stone wall and Sarev is critically injured and knocked
unconscious.
An ambulance arrives within ten minutes to take Sarev to hospital. The paramedics, John and Carol, who are the
crew on the ambulance, fail to close the rear door of the ambulance correctly and, as it accelerates away, the
stretcher on which Sarev is lying is thrown out on to the road. Sarev is run over and killed by a van driven by Ron
that is travelling closely behind the ambulance.
Duane and Florence have been married for eight years. Recently they have separated because Duane is drinking
heavily. Duane is depressed and has been prescribed tranquillizers by his doctor and told not to take them when
he has been drinking. Duane has taken his tranquillizers when he sees pictures of Florence with another man on
a social networking website. He has several drinks and then goes to Florence's house to confront her. Florence
says she is seeing someone who does not drink and makes her happy. Duane says, "He can't 1 | Phave
a g eyou; I'm going
to end it all". Florence replies, "You don't have the nerve". Florence shoves Duane hard. He runs into the kitchen
and grabs a carving knife. Florence laughs at him and Duane stabs her several times, killing her. He dials 999 and
when the ambulance arrives, he tells them that everything went black and he is very sorry.
, (Task 1) P1 – apply the actus reus and mens rea of murder in given
situations
M1 – analyse the law on murder in given situations
1957 and comprise of diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide-
pact.
Lord Coke – ‘The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being
under Queen’s Peace, with malice aforethought, express or
implied’
in the case of ‘R v Stone & Dobinson 1977’ in which the defendants, S
and D, were a couple who took in the person in question, S's sister, as a
guest. S had serious handicaps, being somewhat hard of hearing and
visually impaired. D had learning troubles. While remaining with the
defendants, the sister got unfit to think about herself, having since a long
time ago battled with psychological wellness issues and fixation on her
weight. D put forth a few attempts to think about her, carrying her food
and washing her with the help of a neighbour. In any case, her endeavours
were not continued and deficient, and the casualty died. The respondents
were accused of homicide.
In relation to both Duane and Dipak, we know they have both committed
an Act, not an Omission, this is because they have not taken upon a duty
such as duty of care.
The 'Unlawful killing' is the killing of a human being in self-defence or in
prevention of crime. which is against the law and the statute of Parliament.
Such example is outlined in the case of 'Re A 2000' conjoined twins (M)
and (J), were conjoined at the pelvis. Twin J was the stronger of the two,
which meant she was able to support her own life without her twin M.
however twin M was the weaker one which meant she was dependant on
her twin for life. The doctors in the hospital outlined that for twin J to
survive she would need to be separated from her twin, but this would
mean that twin M would die. They also outlined that if they keep the twins
as they are. Both twins would have at least 6 months to live and then they
would both die. The parents refused to allow the hospital to perform a
surgery. And so, the hospital had to go to the court to ask for a declaration
that they can perform the surgery as it would be classed a 'Murder' if they
did not perform the surgery. And so, the hospital was given the declaration
to perform the surgery with twin J surviving.
2|Page
