When a human being is killed by another human being, the act is known as a homicide. The two main types of homicides are murder and manslaughter with the difference being that manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder (Slapper & Kelly 1999). The English legal system is a system of law that is practiced in England. This kind of system is practiced in most of the commonwealth countries. The English legal system recognizes homicides and continues to explain that for a case to be rated as a homicide, there must be a person who is dead and the death of that person came as a result of an act by another person (Jason 1997, p. 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.
[...] Provocation is a defence law which provided that when a person if provoked he /she can at time cause actions that will in turn lead to the death of other human beings. In this case, Peter provoked Derek and Cedric when he chose to startle the horses which in turn caused the death of Quinn. Quinn was haemophiliac but his death came as a result of Peter who startled the horses which led to Quinn falling from horseback and dying. Derek and Cedric must be able to prove that they were provoked into doing the action by Peter who had killed their friends. [...]
[...] In conclusion, the English legal system has provisions for one to be able to prove his / her case in that, if a murder is committed either, intended or unintended, then one would get the chance to prove in a court of law the reason as to why they committed the said case. In addition to that we see that, according to the English legal system, there is voluntary manslaughter which is committing manslaughter voluntarily and there is involuntary manslaughter which is committing of murder without the intention to do so (Slapper & Kelly 2011). References Chadwick, A 2011, The English Legal System, John Wiley and Sons, London. Gillespie, A 2007, The English legal system, Oxford University Press, London. Gillespie, A 2009, The English legal system, Oxford University Press, London. [...]
[...] But instead, Derek and Cedric caused an action that led to the death of Peter by them throwing him into a lake. Though Derek and Cedric were provoked by the action of Peter which led to the death of Quinn, they would have acted like a reasonable person would have in their capacity (Gillespie 2007, p. 15). If the jury is certain that Derek and Cedric were provoked into the action then they would conduct the reasonable man test where they will test and see if a reasonable man would have committed the act that the defendants had committed. [...]
[...] This occurred when Quinn fell from the horseback and died due to his haemophiliac condition. If Peter had taken into consideration that his act will cause harm or injury to the horse riders then he would have considered not committing the action which in turn caused the death of Quinn though it was unintentional. Peter would have then been sentenced to four years imprisonment because he grossly neglected his duty of care to the other human being who in this case is Quinn who died as a result of his action towards him. [...]
[...] This is because by him doing so, there would no case for him to answer because he did not commit manslaughter. According to this fact, maybe when Peter startled the horse and Quinn fell from its back, the cause of his death was not the impact of hitting the ground but instead it was his medical condition. At the same time, Peter would have a case to answer because due to his actions of startling the horse, Quinn fell from horseback and as a result died of his medical condition. [...]
using our reader.