Criminal law (1 Viewer)

[MaryJane]

Gah! I'm sooo close: 2067 words (including the stupid references of course)...grrr references

I'm sleeping now. Nite!

 

[iwannarock]

My biggest defence is provocation, so yeah, I'm talking about it a lot too. Are you talking about proportionality in self-defence for a counter-argument for the prosecution?

My back hurts. Dont even mention contracts... I think I'll vomit.

ah thats a big relief for me i thought i was going way off track.

yeah basically im looking at the weaker arguments sarah has to bring up for the prosecution. self defense looks like one of them to me so im gonna mention it and the prosecutions counter argument since it just seems like theres not a lot to back it up. hmmmmm proportionality? from the viro case? i thought they abandonded that cuz they didn't like it because it was objective?

i don't know, you know more than me. so proportionality is included for self defense now? im having trouble locating the right authority for self defense. is it the statute or one of these viro or zecevic or conlan etc?

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

yeah wat on earth is going on with the authorities for self-defence? my favourite case for it is R v PRFN (p.738) cause it discusses both viro and zecevic, but now my friend is saying that anne gave them sheets and pretty much said don't worry too much about common law self defence since statute's overrulled heaps of it. ok but apparently the statute was in the 1990s, and r v. prfn is from 2000! so i don't know what's going on - do you know what exactly has been 'overruled by statute' and where this reference is?

 

[iwannarock]

oh great..........maryjane is gone.

we are now officially doomed.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

hehe so true. why am i laughing? oh my. so wishing boredofstudies permitted swearing. i could really go for some good swearing right now. i've only done like 300 words. how's yours going? and do you know what's the go with the legislation overriding self-defence?

 

[iwannarock]

i'm at 1250 words..........but i stress that for essays i aim for quantity not quality. especially law essays lol. i never usually get above a pass.

i noticed that r v prfn case too and i thought awesome i can relate this to self defense. it can't help sarah but because the appeal was dismissed.

at the end of the judgement it agrees with zecevic case. (objective test in regards in regards to the belief of the accused that there was an immanent threat. they have to have reasonable grounds, its not about a reasonable person in the position of the accused).

see does that mean we go by the zecevic case.......but that was before the statute. and the statute doesn't really offer much. this r v prfn case doesnt even mention the statute once so how do we know how to apply it?

hopefully maryjane can clear this up for us in the morning because im confused too. and in a couple of hundred words im gonna have to be talking about it too. ahhhhhhh

can't we swear on this board..........hmmm nobody told me.....i've been swearing a couple of times on here....woops lucky i havent been banned.

 

[MaryJane]

Morning!

lol, you two are too funny!

Self-defence is contained in the crimes act s.....418. there are basically two elements you need to fulfil to rely on it: necessity (418(2)) and proportionality (421-excessive self-defence)). If you can prove both (that it was necessary and proportional) then you can be acquitted. if you can only show necessity, but the force is deemed unproportional, then you can have the charge reduced to manslaughter.

I've raised some common law despite there being statute about it (esp. provocation), so I dont see any problems raising that one with PRFN, esp. if it helps the prosecution.

...only 7.5 hours left to work on it!

 

[iwannarock]

what pages did you get that from?

 

[MaryJane]

I'm not sure what you're asking about... Umm.. the sections in the act give the two elements (necessity and excessive self-defence).

in the first half to do with necessity (s. 418), ss (1) says that a person will not be criminally responsible if the person carries out self-defence..

in s 421 (2) it says that a person will be criminally responsible for manslaughter, not murder.

Plus, out tutor said it in the tute...

 

[iwannarock]

thank you thank you.

oh ok, its because i was looking for it in this orange book and couldn't find it in the self defences section.

now im almost on to causation *checks word count*

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh only 200 words left for causation!


edit: ok i finally finished my essay. just need to fix the footnotes up and get it closer to 2000.

i quite possibly will have the most brief causation argument out of everybody's essay

 

[MaryJane]

I've finished!! And you know what? It is exactly 2000 words: no joking or bullshitting the word count either! But I'm afraid of writing 2000...

 

[iwannarock]

write 2000.

i think they know that people cut words and rearrange stuff to get it exactly to 2000.

its no surprise most people would actually have an exact word count of 2000.