Comments | little_details: English Court system (modern day) conviction and/or sentencing

goldvermilion87 in little_details

English Court system (modern day) conviction and/or sentencing

Nov 26, 2011 10:19

I've done a bit of research, and I want to have one of my characters convicted of voluntary manslaughter in England.

First of all, to check that -- does voluntary manslaughter sound reasonable when the character did not premeditate his act, was under the influence, and had been provoked? I was reading around and that seemed to fit reasonably well, ( Read more... )

uk: government (misc)

Comments 18

jayb111 November 26 2011, 16:20:46 UTC

Does 'voluntary manslaughter' actually exist in English law? If you've come across it on a UK-based official legal site, fair enough, but I've never heard of it.

I'd be cautious about taking L&O UK as entirely representative of English law and practice. I haven't watched many episodes, but it seemed to me to be very much aimed at US audiences and used terminology that doesn't exist in English law - for example 'the People'. And some of the police procedures it showed, for example dealing with Suspect Packages, just Would Not Happen.

The best English police procedural was the now-defunct 'The Bill', especially in the early years.

As to sentencing, within the guidelines it would be specific to the particular case, taking into account what actually happened, the defendant's previous record, medical history etc., so it's impossible to generalise.

goldvermilion87 November 26 2011, 16:23:09 UTC

There's definitely voluntary manslaughter. It looks like homicide is either murder or manslaughter, and manslaugher is voluntary or involuntary ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/ ) but I could be misinterpreting that.

Knowing that Law and Order isn't very accurate makes me feel better... since I can't for the life of me find an episode anywhere online... :-)

jayb111 November 26 2011, 16:24:22 UTC

Replying to myself because I can't edit. I've just re-read your post and see you say 'UK'. There's no such thing as 'UK law' or 'British law'. English law differs from Scottish law, so you do need to be specific about where this is taking place.

goldvermilion87 November 26 2011, 16:25:40 UTC

Ah... ok-- English (and Welsh, it seems from research?) law. But this is in England.

Thread 9

dreamingrain November 26 2011, 16:43:47 UTC

In English law, you must be guilty of having both the necessary Mens Rea and Actus Reus in order to be convicted of murder.
Mens reus = guilty mind
Actus reus = guilty action

In order to be convicted of manslaughter, it is only necessary to have the actus reus

However, this is where it gets a bit complicated because there's many defences such as automatism and insanity, as well as self defence.

As well, there are different types of manslaughter - such as Gross Negligence Manslaughter, or Reckless Manslaughter - which I think would best apply to your character.
Check out the caes of LIdar (2000) 4 Archbold News 40
if you can find it - it might be a good reference for you.

However, if you didn't want to get in depth, it would be sufficient to say:

"It can be seen that while D does not have the necessary Mens rea, his/her actions have led to the death of V - and thus, can be convicted of manslaughter."

However, I suggest that you look up cases of manslaughter

mandragora1 November 26 2011, 17:39:20 UTC

Provocation (as was, it's now called 'loss of control') is a defence to murder, so as to reduce murder to manslaughter. The fact that there's no premeditation isn't a defence to murder per se, although it's a mitigating factor when it comes to sentence.

The fact that your character is 'under the influence' most definitely is not a defence to be taken into account - about half of all violent crime is committed whilst drunk in England & Wales. You could perhaps use it as mitigation if being drunk causes someone to act 'out of character', but, really, they shouldn't get drunk in the first place so it's not your best mitigation point, unless their drinks were spiked ( ... )

mandragora1 November 26 2011, 17:40:01 UTC

As others have said, do not under any circumstances take 'Law & Order:UK' as a guideline for what actually happens in the UK... Even the name of the programme is wrong, given that there are 3 separate legal jurisdictions in the UK. I find it to be completely unwatchable because I spend the whole time yelling at the screen due to the myriad inaccuracies. It's even worse than most legal dramas, and most of them are pretty bad.

The recent drama 'Silk', until it dropped wildly into soap opera terrain, wasn't too bad - got a lot of what life at the criminal Bar is like right and it was fun playing 'spot the location' (they filmed a lot at Kingston Crown Court, for example). I can't remember whether it will assist in procedural matters. If you can find any episodes of 'The Bill' which have court room stuff in then they should assist as The Bill usually got it right. Trouble is, it's a bit dated now.

goldvermilion87 November 26 2011, 17:45:49 UTC

That's quite helpful, thanks.

I was thinking voluntary manslaughter both because of provocation/loss of control and (even though, as you say, it's not as good a defense) because the defense did argue that the alcohol made him act out of character.

Most of that is headcanon to my story, and is only mentioned obliquely, but it's good to have it in my head.

The only moment in the courtroom is his being declared guilty. Do you know how it would sound when the Jury gives a verdict? I'd be happy with that or the judge, because the conviction is the opening to the story.

mandragora1 November 26 2011, 18:04:52 UTC

In case I wasn't clear - being drunk isn't usually a defence at all! Not in law, because you did the act complained of. The fact that the alcohol made him act out of character is mitigation on sentence only, not a legal defence.

Yes, I know how it sounds when the jury gives a verdict. *g* The jury will be asked if they've reached a verdict. The foreperson will say yes. They'll be asked to state whether they find the defendant guilty or not guilty as the charge of murder by reason of loss of control and the foreperson will make a one or two word response as appropriate.

If the CPS reduce the charge to manslaughter and he pleads to that, the charge will be 'put' that is read to him by the court associate, and then he'll state 'guilty'. The verdict will be recorded and then the judge will move to discussion of when sentence will take place. If a defendant pleads guilty it's nowhere near as dramatic as when the jury comes back.

Thread 7

chase_glasslace November 27 2011, 05:37:21 UTC

I wanted to make a comment on the intoxication point. Intoxication is not a defence in the same way that provocation is a defence, but I disagree with other posters who have said that it would only be considered in mitigation during sentencing. Voluntary intoxication negates the mens rea for a particular group of offences, called offences of specific intent. These are crimes where the defendant not only does an act, but also intends/is reckless to a specific consequence. Murder is an offence of specific intent, and is therefore covered by intoxication, but manslaughter is one of basic intent and is therefore not. This means that if the defendant in your situation was found to have been so intoxicated that he was incapable of forming the requisite intent to murder or do GBH, his conviction would be reduced from murder to manslaughter. Bear in mind that this is requires a level of intoxication which would go beyond just being a bit drunk, though.

This mainly comes from the case of DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443. I don't think there's ( ... )