CRIMINAL LAW - HOMISIDE Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

CRIMINAL LAW - HOMISIDE - Assignment Example 23). With reference to the above given question, this paper will determine the accuracy and the type of homicide that was involved in the two cases given. In addition to that, this paper will identify the relevant points that will be able to prove that the offences that were committed were committed by the said parties. This paper will also cite correctly the legal authorities and scholarly opinions which support or refute those arguments. In the case study given above, Peter committed the act of hiding behind the fence in Quinn’s field with the intention of startling the horses and riders but instead, the act led to the death of Quinn who fell from a horse which was startled by Peter. At the same time, Derek and Cedric who were hunting together with Quinn, picked up Peter, carried him out of the field and threw him into a lake. As a result, there were two murders, that is, that of Quinn who was killed unintentionally by Peter and that of Peter who was killed intentionally by Cedric and Derek. In the first case where Quinn was killed by Peter, that kind of murder is known as involuntary manslaughter according to the English legal system. ... This act can also be put in the category of manslaughter by gross negligence. This is where one ignores all the risks involved in the act and goes ahead to commit it which later leads to the death of another human being. In this case, Peter had foreseen that there was a possibility of a rider falling from a horse as he startled it but ignored the fact and went ahead to commit the act which in turn led to the death of Quinn. There are four stages of gross negligence known as Adomako test that was presented by the House of Lords in the United Kingdom (Slapper & Kelly 2011). The Adomako test involves stages which are; a duty of care of existence to the deceased. This is a stage which arises when; a person commits an act without being reasonable or being able to foresee the results of his / her actions because some the acts may lead to death. In this case study Peter was not reasonable when he committed the act of startling the horses knowing very well that this act may cause injury or h arm to another person but instead caused death to Quinn. If Peter had the duty of care to the other human beings, he would have foreseen the results of his actions and would have been able to foretell what would have happened if he continues with his intentions. In this case, Peter foresaw the results of his action and was not reasonable enough to know that his actions can cause injury or even murder to a fellow human being. Therefore, there was a breach of the duty of care by Peter towards Quinn. A breach of the duty of care is where a person may not be able to act as a reasonable person would have in their possession (Wheeler 2002, p. 42). In this case, Peter did not act as a reasonable person would have acted in his position and