Murder Defences Criticisms

1884 Words8 Pages
An article published by the A-level law review, written by Ian Yule and entitled ‘Murder most foul?’ has two very important statements in the opening paragraph from people or groups who have first-hand knowledge of what is failing the British legal system when it comes to the decisions regarding cases of murder and voluntary manslaughter. Ken Macdonald QC, the director of public prosecutions, stated that ‘There should be degrees of homicide, not just murder and manslaughter but three or four degrees’. It is evident that our existing homicide laws are in urgent need of reform when even the Director of public prosecutions criticises them. The second is from the Law Commission itself in 2004 published a report relating to the partial defences for murder declaring ‘the present law of murder in England and Wales is a mess’ and also in the same report the Law Commission said that there was ‘a pressing need for a review of the whole law of murder rather than merely some partial defences’. The current law serves to confirm and underline how seriously flawed the present law on homicide is. The Law commission described the law homicide as ‘a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations.’ There have been some slight reforms by judges and Parliament. The most recent being the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which seeks to tackle the two longstanding problems of the homicide law which are the partial defences of loss of control (formerly provocation) and diminished responsibility which are frequently stretched and pushed to their absolute limits of reasoning in some cases as defences. The article ‘Murder most foul’ by Ian Yule, written for the A-Level law review magazine provides extensive details of some of the most common problems and criticisms that have been found with the law, as does the ‘Criminal Law’ by Elliot and Quinn. A common theme in both of these publications and

More about Murder Defences Criticisms

Open Document