Mulenga And Manslaughter

2409 Words10 Pages
The aim of this paper is to determine what the possibilities are of Mulenga, a drug addict, of being convicted and of what offence in particular in relation to killing Bwalya after hitting him ten times on the head with a cricket bat. In determining this, the background of homicide with specific reference being made to murder and manslaughter will be given, followed by the application of the rule of law to the facts at hand as well as possible defences to certain offences from with the conclusion will be drawn. Homicide is the legal term for killing a man, whether lawfully or unlawfully. However, there is no crime of homicide. Unlawful homicide at common law comprises the two crimes of murder and manslaughter. There are also other types of…show more content…
With respect to murder, the penal code under section 200 explicitly states that any person who of malice aforethought’; thus, demands the need of the mens rea. Malice aforethought relates to the state of mind of the accused person at the time he caused the death of the deceased. malice aforethought may be either express malice which demands an intention to cause death or do grievous bodily harm, implied malice which entails proof of knowledge (knowledge that may be accompanied by indifference) that the act or omission will probably result into causing death or grievous harm to the person or constructive malice which requires the accused person to cause death while attempting or committing a felony. On the other hand, the mens rea of murder which is malice aforethought is not linked to manslaughter. This is why manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder. Nevertheless, manslaughter is in two types, usually referred to as voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In case of involuntary manslaughter, the accused lacks malice aforethought while in voluntary manslaughter both the actus reus and mens rea of murder exists, but additional factors that may be present such as provocation or diminished responsibility which operates as a partial defence to murder reduces it to…show more content…
In the words of Lord Simon he stated that “…the mode of resentment must bear a reasonable relationship to the provocation if the offence must be reduced to manslaughter.” In the light of walker v R , lord fenton Atkinson said that “It has never been the law that the man who completely loses his temper on some trivial provocation and reacts with gross and savage violence which kills his victim can hope for a jury to find a verdict of manslaughter on grounds of provocation." this principle was also relied upon in the case of Makomela v the people , where the court was of the view that that for a man to shoot another on the reasonable belief that he had stolen your money and also threatened to beat you with a stick does not bear the necessary reasonable relationship to the
Open Document