Unquestionable Sections Of Giving Orders In Court Cases

There are unquestionable sections of offences taken into consideration when determining the facts and giving orders in court. These can be an action of wrong doing or a crime which an individual did up to his/her choice without a conscious thought. Diminished responsibility can minimise a crime from a maximum sentence to a lower sentence of manslaughter. Diminished responsibility involves a person murdering another person and the person who committed the crime will not be declared guilty of murder, if they are declared mentally unstable. For example, a less advanced state of mind or someone who might have been involved in an accident and his or her mind persuades them to commit a crime.

Homicide Act (1957) s2,states “On charges of murder,

The ruling of a crime committed during loss of self controls is similar to the diminished responsibility. Coroner and Justice Act (2009) states that “On a charge of murder, if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence under sub-section (1), the jury must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves be-yond reasonable doubt that it is not”. The criminal law is, in fact, worried about liability and being at fault and the law of court, by permitting the defence, the courts are demonstrating it to be unjust to accuse a person who has loss of self control. This means the offender must provide evidence that shows loss of self control and convince the courts this defence is not voluntarily caused like what the defence in the case of Mathew Tvrdon (2013)

He spent the whole day drinking with his friends. The friends went to sleep at the appellant’s house. The appellant claimed that he was woken by one of his friends hitting him on his head. The appellant picked up a broken glass and started hitting his friend to defend himself. He said the fight subsided and cooked them both a chop and went back to sleep. In the morning the friend was dead because he had lost lots of blood and had multiple injuries on his body caused by the sharp objects used during the fight. His defence was he thought that he was under attack therefore he had to defend himself even though he was highly drunk,which could have clouded his judgement. Lord Morris states “A jury will be told that the defence of self defence will only fail if the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self defence”. In this case the defendant took the defence procedure past what is sensible because he was intoxicated, therefore self-defence would not help him. The courts found him guilty of