Academic literature on the topic 'Homicide acts'

This thesis examines the regulatory and legislative approach taken in the United Kingdom to deal with deaths arising from work related activities and, in particular, deaths that can be directly attributed to the behaviour of corporations and other organisations. Workplace health and safety has traditionally been seen in the United Kingdom as a regulatory function which can be traced to the very earliest days of the Industrial Revolution. With an emphasis on preventing workplace accidents and ill-health through guidance, advice and support, the health and safety legislation and enforcement regime which had evolved over the best part of two centuries was considered inadequate to effectively punish corporations considered responsible for deaths caused by their activities following a series of disasters in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. To address this apparent inadequacy, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was introduced creating the offence of corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide. Based on a gross breach of a relevant duty of care resulting in the death of a person, the Act effectively changed what had previously considered a matter of regulation, an approach that had obvious weaknesses and shortcomings, to one of crime and criminal law. Whether this is the best approach to dealing with deaths caused by an organisation is challenged in this thesis and the apparent distinction between ‘criminal’ and ‘regulatory’ offences is also examined. It was found that an amended Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to include a specific offence of corporate killing, in conjunction with the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 would almost certainly have resulted in a more effective approach to dealing with organisations responsible for causing deaths as consequence of their activities. It was also found that there was no substantive difference between ‘regulatory’ and ‘criminal’ law other than the stigma associated with the latter, and that distinction would almost certainly disappear, at least in the context of worker safety, as a consequence of the penalties available following the introduction of the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008.

This thesis examines the criminal offence of familial homicide created by section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. This offence imposes liability on the defendant if he either caused or allowed the death of the victim, and it does not have to be shown which of these alternatives applies. The offence was created to respond to a loophole in the law under which if it could not be proven which of the defendants killed the victim, or that they were acting together to cause death, they could be acquitted. However, the offence created issues of its own. This thesis builds on the positive aspects of the offence in terms of convicting culpable defendants whilst addressing its weaknesses and the issues it creates for underlying criminal theory. The thesis discusses the theory regarding causation, omissions, mens rea, and accessorial liability which are all affected by the new offence. It also considers domestic violence as it is prevalent within this context. The two main changes to the law proposed by this thesis relate to causation and omissions liability. A more gradated law of causation is necessary, and thus a theory of direct and indirect causation is advanced. It also argues that a new personal association duty is needed, expanding the traditional exceptions to omissions liability. Regarding accessorial liability, this thesis argues that in situations where it is unclear who kills the victim and who allows his death, the familial homicide offence which blurs the distinction between the parties is appropriate because it ensures that culpable defendants are no longer escaping liability. However, where the role of each party is clear the law needs to be reformed. This thesis proposes, that the current approach towards mens rea and domestic violence should remain unchanged.

In 2014, the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) was reformed by the enactment of the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 (Vic) to abolish the offence of defensive homicide. It was in part replaced by a redrafted provision on self-defence to better accommodate responses to family violence and supplemented by family violence jury directions within the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). These reforms were intended to help juries better assess self-defence in a family violence context so that where the actions of a victim of family violence were genuine and reasonable in the circumstances as the victim perceived them, they would be acquitted altogether. Although the reforms sought to respond to long-standing criticisms that the law of self-defence had failed to adequately accommodate victims of family violence, the 2016 Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence nevertheless found that the State of Victoria was inadequately responding to the social harm caused by family violence. To ascertain if the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 (Vic) and amendments to the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) had given victims of family violence who killed their violent partners greater access to self-defence, eight prosecutions heard pursuant to the former law of self-defence under the Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005 (Vic) were analysed using John Rawls’ theory of justice. The analysis revealed 14 examples of imperfect procedural justice which resulted in no women successfully accessing self-defence despite cogent evidence being available. Three relevant prosecutions heard pursuant to the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 (Vic) were also analysed. The analysis revealed an acquittal, a discontinuance and one instance of imperfect procedural justice which suggested that access to self-defence had increased. 12 stakeholders in the criminal justice system were interviewed to probe why these injustices had occurred and whether the current law could be argued to have increased the accessibility of self-defence to victims of family violence. On the former law, the data identified problems including: the provision of dated legal advice; overzealous prosecutions; victims feeling so remorseful that they pleaded guilty despite self-defence being available; defence counsel not raising the family violence self-defence provisions at trial; the complexity of the law and jury instructions. On the current law, the interviews indicated that the accessibility of self-defence had increased due to the revised test for self-defence, Victoria’s new family violence jury directions, increased judicial and professional receptivity and the simplification of the law. However, professional pressures remained in the realm of plea negotiations; pressures continuing to pose foreseeable risks of imperfect procedural justice. Specifically, the abolition of defensive homicide and the charging practices of the Office of Public Prosecutions were identified to have, at times, perpetuated the pressure on victims of family violence to plead guilty to lesser offences despite the existence of cogent evidence of self-defence. Matters were recommended, including, inter alia: the provision of a brief to the Victorian Law Reform Commission and Department of Justice to review the operation of the legislation to ensure that the legislation consistently achieves its objectives. Further, that the prosecution policy of the Office of Public Prosecutions concerning its discretion to prosecute be amended to contain a comprehensive policy informing the prosecutions of victims of family violence with viable claims to self-defence.