No AI Generated Content
Introduction
Access Free Samples Prepared by our Subject Matter Experts, known for offering the Best Online Assignment Help Services in Australia.
The scenario concerning Ellie's guilt over Joel's death offers a difficult and complex legal question. The result of this case relies on how well legal rules, regulations, and traditions are used to determine who is responsible for the terrible death of another. Ellie, the accused in this case, finds herself at the center of an ethical impasse that requires an in-depth examination of the situation, rules of law, and ethical standards.
The events preceding Joel's death visible major problems concerning responsibility, predictability, and causation under the framework of law. At its root, this case compels us to consider the precarious balance between individual agency and expectations from society, leading us to question whether Ellie is liable under the law for the miserable outcome.
The IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion) approach will be employed in this report to carefully analyze all aspects of the case, commencing with a determination of the primary legal issue and ending with a thorough study of the relevant rules and their relevance to the given facts. In doing so, it attempts to offer an immediate and logical review of Ellie's potential contribution to Joel's unexpected death.
Issue
Is Ellie liable for Joel's death?
The primary issue in this case is whether Ellie can be expected criminally to take responsibility for the demise of her husband, Joel, following her administration of lorazepam to him without his insight. Under Australian law, the criminal obligation for murder, specifically manslaughter, is represented by the Criminal Code. Manslaughter or Homicide involves unlawful killing without the plan to kill and consists of two key elements: acts rues and men's rea[1]. Mens rea and Actus Reus are two essential elements of any crime and are the regulations used in most law countries[2]. “Mens rea” means the guilty mind or guilty intention that a person has to commit any crime.
Mens rea highlights some particular intent by the criminal or the accused for the commission of the crime for which he is blamed. Actus Reus means the physical characteristic of a crime. The accused must have omitted to do something or have done something which can result in injury to the complainant or the accused or victim in the cases related to civil[3].
The issue is related to actus reus. Ellie unquestionably administered lorazepam to Joel by crushing and integrating it into his soup, which he ingested. This act constitutes the actus reus, as it directly resulted in the death of Joel. The basic aspect to assess is the mens rea (guilty mind) of Ellie. To establish homicide, there needs to be proof of a chargeable mental state, either reckless or careless[4]. Ellie's state of psyche is vital in this particular circumstance. She administered lorazepam to Joel surreptitiously, with the aim of making him drowsy to work with her escape from his brutal actions. In any case, it remains dubious whether she held to a purpose to cause this demise.
Rule
Manslaughter and murder are the most crucial and serious offenses in all jurisdictions in Australia. There are three types of criminal offenses in Australia. These three types are absolute liability offences, mens rea offenses, and strict liability offenses. In Australia, if a person kills someone then the maximum penalty for murder is “life imprisonment”. For homicide or manslaughter, the penalty is 25 years imprisonment. Section 18 of the Crime Act 1900 has the murder description which notes that any punishable homicide that does not cost to murder is called manslaughter. In Victoria, the Crimes Act 1958 contains homicide offenses and manslaughter and murders are under the common law[5]. In Western Australia, Section 280 contains the manslaughter offense. Section 279 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 contains the murder offense in Australia. In Northern Territory, Section 160 has manslaughter offence and Section 156 of the Criminal Code 1983 contains the offence of murder. Manslaughter is an offense under section 13 in South Australia [6].
Enjoy Additional Savings on WhatsApp order!
Scan the QR code with your mobile to unlock an exclusive offer!
use my discount
The mens rea aspect of manslaughter is important in deciding criminal liability. To establish manslaughter, there must be proof of a liable mental state, which can manifest as one or the other carelessness or recklessness. Ellie's state of psyche becomes vital in this case. She administered lorazepam to Joel without his insight with the expected goal of making him drowsy, to work with her erscapoe3 from his vicious action. Ellie's actions were not simply careless showing recklessness. It would strengthen the case for criminal liability. Recklessness implies a more significant level of culpability, suggesting that Ellie consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk of causing damage or passing to Joel. To establish recklessness, the persecution would have to give proof that Ellie was mindful of the risks implied in administering lorazepam and continued with a reckless disregard for Joel's safety.
Application
In breaking down Ellie's obligation for the passing of her husband, Joel, one must consider the important Australian Law Enforcement Act (2002) criminal law connected with Crime, Punishment, and Prosecution, specifically focusing on manslaughter and causation. Besides, one can draw parallels with real-life incidents and legitimate precedents to give setting and lucidity to the situation. Manslaughter in Australia is characterized as the unlawful killing of someone else without the goal to kill. It encompasses two essential elements: actus reus (liable demonstration) and mens rea (criminal mind). Ellie administered lorazepam to Joel by crushing and blending it into his soup, which he consumed (John Vs. Ellie, 1996). This obviously satisfies the actus reus necessity, as her actions straightforwardly added to Joel's demise. Ellie's direct, in such manner, aligns with the principles of the actus reus component of manslaughter.
Mens rea in manslaughter can manifest as carelessness or recklessness. Ellie's state of the psyche at the hour of administering lorazepam is essential. Her actions demonstrate that she sought to make Joel drowsy, possibly to escape his vicious way of behaving. Be that as it may, her specific aim in regard to Joel's demise remains ambiguous. To assess her risk precisely, one must dig further into her mental state and expected culpability[7]. There are two types of manslaughter. Causation is a pivotal aspect of manslaughter cases. Ellie's actions must be a substantial cause of Joel's passing. In this case, despite the fact that Ellie administered lorazepam, the prompt cause of death was Joel's fall into the fishpond. To decide Ellie's culpability, one must assess whether her actions substantially added to this result. The types are voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. In New South Wales, there are three main doctrines related to voluntary Manslaughter. Extreme provocation, excessive self-defense, and substantial impairment.
In R vs. Stanley (No.2) [2023] NSWSC 74, a young man was found guilty of manslaughter. The man stabbed another man in self-defense as the other person was continuously threatening him[8].
One of the memorial cases in Australia is Royall Vs. R [1991] HCA 27. In this, the victim jumped out of the bathroom window. The victim was trying to escape from the violence that she was having with her boyfriend, Mr., Royall. The victim, Kelly Louise Healey was engaged in a violent argument with the Royal. At the trial, the prosecution put three explanations for her death. First, Mr. Rouyall had pushed her from the window, second, she tried to escape from the life-threatening violence and third to avoid an attack from her boyfriend, she jumped from the window. The court found that Rouyal's action caused her death[9].
Given the complexities of this case, it is suggested that a comprehensive investigation is led. This should incorporate assessing Ellie's expectations, state of psyche, and whether her actions substantially added to Joel's suffocating[10]. Legitimate experts and clinical professionals should be consulted to establish causation. Contingent upon the findings, the suitable lawful activity, if any, should be pursued. It is essential to move toward this matter with sensitivity, considering Ellie's circumstances as the sole carer of a person with a diagnosed bipolar disorder. At last, a fair and just assurance of Ellie's risk should be based on a careful assessment of all pertinent proof and lawful principles.
Conclusion
Ellie's risk for the demise of her husband, Joel, hinges on the utilization of Australian criminal law. To establish her culpability, we must consider the actus reus and mens rea elements of manslaughter. As to reus, Ellie administered lorazepam to Joel, prompting his drowsiness and inevitable suffocation. This activity constitutes the actus reus, as it straightforwardly added to Joel's demise. The basic issue pertains to mens rea. Ellie's state of the brain is crucial. While she administered lorazepam to make Joel nod off, her purpose in causing his passing remains ambiguous. Her essential inspiration seemed to escape from his vicious episodes as opposed to causing hurt. Causation plays a significant job. Ellie's actions might not have straightforwardly caused Joel's suffocation, as it was an autonomous occasion.
Establishing a direct causal connection between her administration of lorazepam and Joel's demise may challenge. Ellie's risk for Joel's demise depends on the establishment of her mens rea and a causal association between her actions and the suffocating. An intensive investigation and legitimate analysis are necessary to decide her possible criminal risk.
[1] sydneycriminallawyers.com.au, (2023). What is Voluntary Manslaughter? Retrieved From: What Is Voluntary Manslaughter? (sydneycriminallawyers.com.au) [Retrieved On: 27-09-2023]
[2] John Vs. Ellie, 1996
[3] ipleaders.in,(2016). Mens Rea And Actus Reus – Essentials Of A Crime. Retrieved From:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/mens-rea-actus-reus-essentials-crime/ [Retrieved On: 27-09-2023]
[4] John Vs. Ellie, 1996
[5] Abbott, L., Anderson, J., Anton, D. K., Baker, K., Barnes, J., Barton, G., ... & Thorpe, D. (2010). Australian law dictionary. Oxford University Press. . Retrieved From:https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/15795/13/15795_Davies_2010_Contributor_pages.pdf [Retrieved On: 27-09-2023]
[6] gotocourt.com.au, (2022). Murder and Manslaughter. Retrieved From: https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/murder-and-manslaughter/#:~:text=The%20maximum%20penalty%20for%20murder,parole%20period%20is%2020%20years. [Retrieved On: 27-09-2023]
[7] Blake, M. (2019). Protecting older persons from lifethreatening and fatal abuse: Should western Australian criminal law do more?. University of Western Australia Law Review, 45(2), 195-215. Retrieved From:https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.528418136727880 [Retrieved On: 27-09-2023]
[8] mondaq.com, (2023). Australia: What is voluntary manslaughter? Retrieved From: https://www.mondaq.com/australia/crime/1287044/what-is-voluntary-manslaughter#:~:text=In%20R%20v%20Stanley%20(No,exchanged%20at%20a%20nearby%20party [Retrieved On: 27-09-2023]
[9] nswcourts.com.au, (2015), What is “Causation” in Criminal Law? Retrieved From: https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/what-is-causation-in-criminal-law/#:~:text=In%20the%20important%20case%20of,with%20her%20boyfriend%2C%20Mr%20Royall.&text=3.,escape%20'life-threatening%20violence[Retrieved On: 27-09-2023]
[10] Hessick, F. A., & Hessick, C. B. (2021). Nondelegation and Criminal Law. Virginia Law Review, 107(2), 281-345. Retrieved From: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1573&context=faculty_publications [Retrieved On: 27-09-2023]
