This is to bring to your kind notice that you have been charged for the murder of Perter for the offence of potential homicide.
Homicide is like an umbrella that shelters every those acts that are related to the killing of one human being by another human being, and the same can be lawful or at times it can be unlawful. This potential homicide cannot be always considered to be a punishable act under criminal law, yet the decision depends exactly on what type of homicide it is. Now there can be three different kinds of homicide:
- Justifiable homicide: It is done for the greater good and is excusable under certain circumstances when they are extensively proven. Killing a person in self defense or killing the one who becomes a threat to the society is counted here.
- Criminal homicide: This is when a person kills another person unlawfully either with the intention of harming the individual or unintentionally. Voluntary/involuntary manslaughter, helping one in committing a suicide, malice and murder are criminal homicide.
- State-sanctioned homicide: This is when the state approves the act of killing someone. War, capital punishment etc. are state-sanctioned homicide.
Here in this case the death of Peter is being considered as malice murder that comes under the criminal homicide where the family of the victim is charging you for deliberately murdering Peter. As a matter of fact, you have tried to hit Emma with your stiletto shoe and missed her target and that injured the head of Peter that later caused his death. This has been identified by them that you have got certain specific intentions behind killing Peter and you have committed the murder with the specific intention of killing Peter in a manner or the other. As the case have turned out to be a case that have led to the death of Peter, so irrelevant of your intention surrounding this particular incident it will be treated as homicide where you have taken the life of some other human being. As per the Homicide Act 1957, mens rea is the mental element of the criminal that directs the criminal to harm another individual and when the mens rea for a murder is ‘malice aforethought’ then the court interprets that there was an intention behind the killing. When there is a direct intention of killing the victim then that is called express malice and if the intention of causing some serious bodily harm to the victim then that is referred to as implied malice. To get a more clear understanding of the situation we can consider here the R v Mbavumbili (Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1999)  TZCA 38, where the appellant Raphael Mbavumbili, was accused for the murder of his daughter by biting her and burning the private parts of her body with a fire brand. Later the accused was sentenced to death by the court. It was also found that the accused was unaware of what he did because he drank some local brew but the judge considered the case as that of a malice aforethought of the deceased by the accused.
Now it is to be found out that if Peter died out of this injury or some other reasons and that will decide your innocence or guilt when you are accused of a malice murder.
This was all regarding the case, as you got involved into this we will have to investigate what was the actual reason behind the death of Peter and then only we can reach to the conclusion. For that matter what I need to hear from you is the details of each and every comment and conversation that took place on the night of that incident. With that probably we will also get an idea why the family of the deceased is assuming that it was a planned murder from your end. And with that probably we will be able to answer a whole lot of mysteries that are involved in the case.
Will wait to hear the true facts from you. Till then do take care of yourself. Your kind cooperation in this regard will be highly appreciated from my end.
Thanks and Regards
Dated - 4th June, 2018.
The terms like homicide and malice and murder are often heard being used in the news and relates to the situation when the act of an individual ends up with the death of another individual. The present case basically concerns some facts that takes place upon the end of the long-term relationship between Stephen and Emma. Lisa and Peter were good friends of Stephen and were really concerned about the condition of Stephen who was very much upset with the separation. In such a situation Lisa and Peter unexpectedly met Emma at the Goodtimes restaurant and there was an argument where Lisa accused Emma for wrecking the life of Stephen. Lisa became angry and tried to hit Emma with her stiletto shoe. Unfortunately Lisa missed her target and the shoe stroke the head of Peter causing him an injury in his head and later he died. Again Lisa picked up a glass bottle. Billy, a waiter in the Goodtimes restaurant was watching the argument and assumed that Lisa was about to throw that glass. Billy stepped in and pushed away Lisa from Emma. Later it was discovered that the Goodtimes restaurant did not follow the health and safety regulations causing some diners suffering from food poisoning and the restaurant is shut down. Presently the Food Standards Agency is prosecuting the restaurant.
Now upon the death of Peter, Lisa was accused for murdering Peter. This report will suggest her that if Lisa happens to suffer from medically recognized psychosis, then if there would be any changes regarding the acquisition that have been brought against her regarding the malice murder of Peter.
Part 2: If Lisa Suffers From Medically Recognized Psychosis
If Lisa suffers from an abnormality of the mental functioning and that arose from voluntary intoxication of and not from some specific recognized medical conditions, then Lisa, who is accused in this case will not be able to defend herself in the court of law. The law in this case is very much clear that an offender cannot be relieved of the charges of murder if the recognized psychosis is a result of voluntary intoxication. So as to be able to alter the charges of murder of Peter, Lisa has to bring about relevant and proper medical evidences so as to prove the fact that the medically recognized psychosis she is suffering from is of such a severe degree and along with that the same illness is also independent of the alcohol or drug abuse. Doing that her responsibility for the murder of Peter can be impaired substantially. In this context, the R v Kay  EWCA Crim 647 can be referred where the accused was a paranoid schizophrenic. The offender was accused of murder but had a previous history of drug and alcohol abuse. It was later found that the basic reason that triggered the mental disorder of the accused was voluntary intoxication that was coupled with drugs/drinks dependency syndrome which was diagnosed upon recognized and relevant medical examinations. However, the accused claimed that in spite of being intoxicated with some illegal alcohol and drug, it was basically the mental illness that he was suffering from that resisted him from keeping self control and further caused him commit the murder. Since voluntary intoxication was the reason of the mental disorder and the same was not caused due to the medical condition so the accused person could not avail a partial defense for himself. Along with that it was also mentioned in the court that the law did not officially prohibit anyone who is suffering from mental illness from claiming the partial defence where the principal reason that triggered or initiated the psychotic state, but again the same individual needs to meet the specified criteria within the section 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957. So upon recognized medical examinations if it is found that Lisa is suffering from medically recognized psychosis and voluntary intoxication is nowhere the reason for the mental illness of Lisa, then she can appeal for her partial defense regarding the charges of murder of Peter which the victims party is claiming to be malice murder.
By the end of this task we have found the relevant case studies that can make it easy for Lisa to understand her crime regarding the murder of Peter which was committed by Lisa. By referring the pieces of information that are mentioned in this letter, It will be easier for Lisa to clarify the actual incident that happened in Goodtimes restaurant causing the death of Peter. And if she finds that she has enough proofs to prove that she had no intentions of killing Peter then she can accordingly speak to her solicitor and take the relevant legal steps to move ahead and sort out this case. Along with that we have also found the relevant case law that makes it clear that if Lisa is suffering from medically recognized psychosis that is not caused by drug addiction or voluntary intoxication, then she can appeal for her defense in this case.
Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson. Homicide: Foundations of human behavior. Routledge, 2017.
de Souza, Monica Gomes Teixeira Campello, Bruno Campello de Souza, Wofgang Bilsky, and Antonio Roazzi. "The culture of honor as the best explanation for the high rates of criminal homicide in Pernambuco: A comparative study with 160 convicts and non-convicts." Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 26, no. 1 (2016): 114-121.
Russell, Paul. "Euthanasia: Belgium, Netherlands in the grip of the small laws." News Weekly 2959 (2015): 14.
(Nyulawreview.org, 2018) <https://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-91-4-Spies.pdf> accessed 4 June 2018
'R V Mbavumbili (Criminal Appeal No. 62 Of 1999)  TZCA 38; (22 August 2005); | Tanzania Legal Information Institute' (Tanzanialii.org, 2018) <https://www.tanzanialii.org/node/15294> accessed 4 June 2018
Mittal, Vijay A., Derek J. Dean, Jyoti Mittal, and Elyn R. Saks. "Ethical, legal, and clinical considerations when disclosing a high?risk syndrome for psychosis." Bioethics 29, no. 8 (2015): 543-556.
Mellsop, Graham, W. K. Choi, Susanna Every-Palmer, Bob Green, Ed Heffernan, Margarita Kachaeva, Akihiro Shiina, and Xiaoping Wang. "Drug driven psychoses and legal responsibility or insanity in six Western Pacific nations." International journal of law and psychiatry 47 (2016): 68-73.
Storey, Tony. "Court of Appeal: Drug-Free Zone: Court of Appeal Confirms that Voluntary Intoxication is not Relevant in Cases of Diminished Responsibility R v Kay  EWCA Crim 647." The Journal of Criminal Law 81, no. 4 (2017): 258-261.
Monaghan, Nicola. Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Zazula, Bela Attila. "Involuntary Manslaughter in The New Romanian Penal Code." Journal of Legal Studies 16, no. 30 (2015): 31-38.