Explaining Criminal Law Fundamentals and Their Application

Analysis of Criminal Law Concepts and a Crime Scenario

Get Free Samples Written by our Top-Notch Subject Expert Writers known for providing the No.1 Assignment writing services in Australia.

1.1. Offender Introduction

In this paper, every major explanation of criminal law and topics relating to it were included. These explanations further regulate critical thinking techniques. The criminal regulatory practise upholds the legitimacy of the problems in the methods for the benefit of the general public. The issues-resolving strategy and the significant instances added to the plans for the offense's future exceptions further the material related to the issues. The examination of the fundamental perspective that has been appropriated by the systems about the viewpoints and data on the perpetrator and victims is covered in the other section.

The Australian Constitution Act 1900, a separate Australian constitution, is included in the UK parliament.The purview, which includes corporate protests, family regulation, liquidation, and state regulation, is the foundational component of the constitution. The people of the countries are regarded as the essential groups in Australia, which also includes the liberal party, the selection of the government parliament, and the parliament. The chief representative general, who is also recognised as the designated regulation coordinating Australia's legal findings, maintains the constitution.

1.2. Crime

Different mistakes or demonstrations that might result in legal action are recognised as violations, along with the prospect of punishment. This possibility is what separates the criminal law from the law of agreement and wrongdoing and other components of the common law. Assuming the role of the affected party, the customary limit at which the criminal law mediates is the point at which the direct being referred to has a suitably significant societal effect to legitimate the state as opposed to (on account of breach of agreement or trespass) the individual impacted. The American Model Penal Code, in particular, provides a respectable repeat of the legal underpinnings of the criminal law:

1. to prevent and obstruct action that willfully and unforgivably cause serious harm to one's own or the public's interests

2. to make persons accountable to the public by making them aware of their direct evidence of wrongdoing
3. to avoid labelling a direct action that is faultless as unlawful
4. to warn people about the direct declaration of an offence
5. To distinguish between major and minor violations on reasonable grounds.

The crime scene provides background information on the episode where YouTubers Dan Salt, Linda Sugar, and Jonathan Feather produce material that includes tricks. Linda died in the Royal Sovereign Alfred Hospital after falling from four floors in one of the trick video shoots.Surry Hills Children's Court has imposed Dan stringent bail conditions after accusing him of murder.

The narrative evidence related to the demonstration is included with the victim's death declaration, and the defence attorney's office produced a quantifiable report for the continuously charged telephone notes. Because the intent of this conduct is to assign criminal culpability to the companion accused of participating in the offence, the law holds that they must make an explicit agreement to behave lawfully. According to UK criminal law, the VLE provides the necessary guidance for protecting the accused.

By focusing on the incident and identifying the person who should be held accountable for deceiving other YouTubers, the UK criminal law can provide the case's resolution. The main elements of the case scenario are highlighted by the victim's objective. Information and actions that prevented the accused from engaging in other criminal activity are two additional elements of wrongdoing listed in criminal law. The unlawful behavior is connected to the controversy created by the YouTube video, which also revealed the perspective of the person who was rightfully blamed for the infraction. The criminal risk justified by the Criminal Law gives equal advantage to the denied direct and psychological elements that occur at the same rate that led to the offence. "Non facitreummens sit rea" is a Latin phrase used in criminal law to emphasise the significance of criminal responsibility. It means that an act is not deemed to be wrongful unless it is completed with the guilty mind or a false expectation provides legal justification as actus reas. Area 4.2 uses the actus reus and mensreus to describe the homicide.

1.2.1. Actus reus/conduct elements:

Actus reus is the scientific term for the inclusion of real components with the act and exclusion anticipated by the rule. When something is done carelessly and recklessly, some undesirable results are produced that regulation completely rejects. Although the conditions of the protest, especially audit as the denounced and the offended party both had some experience with the risk of death, the demonstration carried out by the charged in the incident described above resulted in the death of the offended party. Willfulness is a key component of Actus reus, and the trick performed by the Dan exemplifies this. According to Actus reus, the lawbreaker's course of action consists of direct actions that result in unfair behaviour.

1.2.2. Mens rea/fault elements

Confirmation that the accused was accountable for their actions is necessary to establish responsibility for major offences. This is because it is a fundamental moral principle underpinning criminal law that the state has the moral authority to reject its citizens if they deserve it. It is referred to as the standard of retribution that equity in discipline demands discipline to be earned. This rule depicts how people conduct themselves in day-to-day life. Children who break jars, decorations, or windows at home, for example, are often not disciplined since it would be unfair to blame them for the breaking. Notably, this isn't the strongest argument in favour of discipline. Another is awaiting. Because punishment involves harming people and "two wrongs don't constitute a right," utilitarian academics agree that discipline can never be justified. The goal of discipline from a utilitarian standpoint is to reduce instances of dangerous and antisocial behaviour by its ability to prevent or impede them.

According to the current perspective, which supports vengeance, punishment for stigmatic offences, such as those addressed in this module guide, is unethical since it requires the offender to be conscious of their inappropriate behaviour. The legislation of criminal activities included in section 14 of the criminal regulation is one area where there is less agreement. Where counteraction shines is in emphasising crimes that have damaged expectations above morally improper behaviour as their primary focus. These crimes typically involve a flaw that doesn't call for conscious awareness of wrongdoing, as in the cases of gross negligence murder and reckless driving. Different wrongdoings do not in any way require a problem component. The majority of traffic violations fall within this category, which is known as wrongdoings of grave duty. Such offences are lawful as not breaking the law since they often do not include public humiliation or detention as an expected punishment.

1.2.3. Temporal coincidence (actus reus/mens rea at the same time)

Criminal protections make up the third aspect of criminal responsibility. Guards prevent criminal responsibility even when the actus reus and mens rea necessary for the offence are present. Self-preservation, insanity, acquiescence, pressure, and need are a few of the more common defences. One of the two moral avowals to avoid responsibility is a safeguard. The first is that it would be wrong to reject the accused even though their protest was unlawful since, in the words of H.L.A. Hart, they were denied "the limit or a fair an open door to adjust" to the prohibition (Punishment and obligation, 1968). These guards are referred to as causes, with pressure and lunacy serving as models. That is the second, which states that even though the offense's intent was realised, the person who was condemned did not act unjustly because of the unique circumstances. Legitimizations are the name for these guardians. One especially significant outcome comes from the way guards function beyond the parameters of an attack. If a part of the crime description is missing but the person being accused doesn't know it at the time they are acting, they are truly released from responsibility. For instance, if An has sex with B while believing she isn't consenting but in fact she is, An isn't legally responsible for assault since one of the necessary elements of the crime (actus reus) is absent. The same cannot be said of precautions. In order to rely on a defence, the accused must not only have a good reason for acting in the way they do, but also be able to back up their accusation.

Conclusion

The representation of the event is created by creating a film for YouTube, and if the conditions' end output had been different, the demonstration's results wouldn't have been covered by the wrongdoing, according to current realities in the subject of wrongdoing. The gamble-taking consumption of the substance that leads to the respondent's death is how the exclusion is formed. The process, as can be seen from the proof, does not suggest that Dan or Jonathan are to blame for the death of Linda. Dan might claim that he was not the actual cause of a robbery on the grounds that Linda would have soon died from the dangerous performance she had performed on her YouTube channel, thus he was not the true culprit. The court ruled that while Dan's activities accelerated when death was inevitable in some way, it was not necessary to prove that he was the only cause of death.

A conviction does not anticipate that someone would suffer damage or that something will go wrong. Despite this, result violations demand both unfair lead and wrongdoing. Therefore, both dangerous driving and a fatality are required for the crime of causing passing by risky driving. However, it is crucial that the indictment also include evidence of causation. Overall, it should show that the litigant's risky driving led directly to the victim's mortality.