http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...e/article5877904.ece

I don't think they wanted to kill the man.But,what an unfortunate incident.Complete idiots.

Best-
Locksley,R

never leave your home unless armed...

Rich
Buff Killer

Claiming to protect animals but willingly putting human lifes at risk to dictate others their ideology.

Eco-terrorism, not ecology, that's what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by RobinOLocksley:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...e/article5877904.ece

I don't think they wanted to kill the man.But,what an unfortunate incident.Complete idiots.
Best-
Locksley,R

It will be interesting to see what transpires as the exact circumstances surrounding the killing have not been released yet..

quote:

Originally posted by Pete E:

quote:

Originally posted by RobinOLocksley:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...e/article5877904.ece

I don't think they wanted to kill the man.But,what an unfortunate incident.Complete idiots.
Best-
Locksley,R

It will be interesting to see what transpires as the exact circumstances surrounding the killing have not been released yet..

Hi Pete, Not wanting to split hairs , but, Killing implies they had intent to kill, I would leave it as "An unfortunate death " At least for now, Steve.

Not quite. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another. However death resulting from an act intended to cause harm can also in some circumstances be murder.

Thus if you hit someone across the head with a chair with the intent only of cracking their skull but it actually kills them that can also be murder.

Or commit an act that was intended to do the other harm and that then results in their death - even if that death was not intended - that is also murder.

Thus: DEFINITION

The classic definition of murder is that of Sir Edward Coke (Institutes of the Laws of England, 1797):

"Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same."

For the purposes of convenience, we can say that murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought. However, death no longer need occur within a year and a day.



ACTUS REUS



1. UNLAWFUL KILLING

The killing must be unlawful. Certain defences, eg self-defence, will make a killing lawful.

The act (or omission) of the defendant must have been the legal cause of the death of the victim. Causation must be established.



2. HUMAN BEING

The killing must be of a living human being.



3. QUEEN'S PEACE

Under the Queen's peace means that the killing of an enemy in the course of war will not be murder.



4. DEATH WITHIN A YEAR AND A DAY

The year and a day rule was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.



MENS REA



1. MALICE AFORETHOUGHT

The mens rea for murder is malice aforethought. The House of Lords in R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 held that nothing less than intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (g.b.h.) would constitute malice aforethought: merely foreseeing the victim's death as probable was insufficient.

(a) Intention to kill

Murder is a crime of specific intent. Intention in this context includes direct or oblique intent. Direct intent covers the situation where the defendant desired the death. Oblique intent covers the situation where the death is foreseen by the defendant as virtually certain, although not desired for its own sake. The most recent authority on intention is:

R v Woollin (1998) The Times, July 23.

(b) Intention to cause G.B.H.

In R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664, the Court of Appeal held that a defendant could be convicted of murder if it was established that he had intended to kill, or had intended grievous bodily harm. The latter was accepted as sufficient mens rea for murder because if a defendant was willing to inflict g.b.h., how was he to know that the victim might not die? An intention to cause g.b.h. at least evidenced a willingness to accept a substantial risk that the victim might die.

In R v Cunningham [1981] 2 All ER 863, the defendant repeatedly struck the victim around the head with a chair resulting in his death. The prosecution contended that while there was no intention to kill, there had been an intent to do really s.b.h. The defendant's plea of manslaughter was rejected and he was convicted of murder. The House of Lords stated that an intention to cause "really serious injury" was sufficient to amount to the mens rea for murder.

Steve,

Never really considered that but what ever your perspective, the guy was killed though..It did strike me that the Police have charged one of the pair with "Murder" and not a lesser crime though such as "manslaughter"

Personally, I am keeping an open mind as its easy to see how a meeting between the two sides could escalate and a genuine accident occur..

Regards,

Peter

Perhaps now someone will take the bull by the horns and issue a court injunction against LACS and any of their members or any other anti shooting/hunting organisation that if they trespass on land where there is legal hunting or shooting then not only will they be arrested for "likely to cause a breach of the peace"because their presence would likely cause a breach of the peace, but also charged for contempt of court for breaking the injunction..

regards
griff

so 12 gauge and rock salt is not okay any more...

sorry but you guy's over there, got the most agressive anti's ever, they dont have a problem with scareing horses with the potential harm of the rider, but the cry and whine when they get beaten up for doing just that.

i will never understand

peter

quote:

so 12 gauge and rock salt is not okay any more...

No Peter its still fine, so long as your not caught using it!!

Agree with you entirley Griff, the law is an ass!!

Anyone hear anymore on this?

last i heard , still waiting to go to trial

Nice!