hi can you edit this writing for mistakes flow and any grammatical…

abhitkaushal
hi can you edit this writing for mistakes flow and any grammatical…

hi can you edit this writing for mistakes flow and any grammatical errors you see 🙂

I have reviewed the facts of the case involving Bob and his husband, Gary, and I believe that Bob has not committed murder, but instead has committed manslaughter. The incident occurred in the heat of the moment when Bob had learned of Gary’s affair with their neighbor, Patrick. The neighbor reported hearing someone screaming “I’ll kill you” however, Bob maintains that he said “I could kill you” which is an expression of frustration and not an actual threat.Malice aforethought means “with intent” to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm it also fits under category of murder, a case that fits under this category is (R. v Moloney (Alistair Baden) [1985] AC 905, explaining Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55. Bob murdering Gary was unintentional and without the purpose of causing bodily harm proving Bob did not express Malice aforethought.

Section 54 of the Corners and Justice Act 2009 (‘CAJA”)  discusses how to differentiate murder from manslaughter and it says that ” he will be guilty of manslaughter if:the killing resulted from the defendant’s loss of self-control;the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger; and a person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant might have reacted in a similar way”. Bobs case relates to this because Bob  admitted that he pushed Gary, but denies that he intended to kill him. He lost control of himself, and did not expect that Gary would land on the wooden barrel and break his neck.  Therefore, he did not have the intent to kill and should not be found guilty of murder.Given the circumstances, I believe it is appropriate to consider Bob’s actions to be manslaughter. The incident occurred in the heat of the moment and Bob had no intention of killing Gary.  I believe that a plea deal should be negotiated with the prosecutor for a lesser charge of manslaughter.

First, it is clear from the facts that Bob did not have any intention to kill Gary. The neighbor’s allegation of Bob shouting ‘I’ll kill you’ is contrary to Bob’s own statement that he instead said ‘I could kill you’ out of anger and frustration. Furthermore, Bob had never been violent in the past and had difficulty controlling himself after learning of Gary’s affair. All of this indicates that Bob did not have any premeditated intent to kill Gary.Section 54(1)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 discusses how “a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or a similar way to D”, this can relate to Bobs situation because he reacted the same way a regular adult would during an argument things did tend to get physical and out of control but nothing that would prove that bob committed a gruesome murder.The distinction between murder and manslaughter is an important one. Murder is the intentional killing of a human being and is usually punishable by a long prison sentence. Manslaughter, on the other hand, is an unintentional killing, usually as a result of recklessness or negligence, and is usually punishable by a shorter prison sentence.

In the case of Bob, there is evidence to suggest that he has not committed murder and instead has committed manslaughter. This memo will provide an argument as to why Bob should be considered to have committed manslaughter and not murder.First, it is clear from the facts of the case that Bob did not have any intention to kill Gary. The neighbor’s allegation of Bob shouting ‘I’ll kill you’ is contradicted by Bob’s own statement that he instead said ‘I could kill you’, indicating he had no premeditated intent to kill. Furthermore, Bob had never been violent in the past and had difficulty controlling himself after learning of Gary’s affair. All of this indicates that Bob did not have any premeditated intent to kill Gary.Second, the coroner’s report suggests that Gary’s death was an accident. Despite Bob pushing Gary, it was impossible for him to know that Gary would land on a wooden barrel that would break his neck. This indicates that the death was unintentional and not the result of Bob’s premeditated intent to commit murder.The facts of the case suggest that Bob had no intention of killing Gary and that his death was an accident. Therefore, Bob should be considered to have committed manslaughter and not murder. This would provide a basis for a deal with the prosecutor for a lesser charge and sentence.

It is important to note that the situations of A person of sound mind and discretion, Unlawfully (with no legitimate explanation), Kills, and Under the Queen’s Peace are all pertinent to the case of Bob and his spouse, Gary(Blackstones Criminal Practice 2018, B1.10). Bob is considered to be a person of sound mind and judgment since he was aware of the acts he was doing and was aware that those actions would have repercussions. Unlawfully indicates that there was no legal basis for Bob’s acts and that he was not acting in self-defense or the defense of another person when he committed them. Another way to phrase this is that there was no lawful reason for Bob’s conduct. Kills indicates that Bob’s activities were a substantial contributing factor in bringing about Gary’s death(R. v Smith (Thomas Joseph) [1959] 2 QB 35). According to Under the Queen’s Peace, the status of the victim is taken into consideration while deciding whether the conduct in question constitutes murder or manslaughter. Infidelity in a sexual relationship is not typically considered to be a factor that can provoke conflict and does not meet the criteria to be considered a trigger on its own;(s.55(6)(c)), 

; however, infidelity in a sexual relationship may be taken into consideration in situations in which it is an essential component of the larger contextR. v Clinton (Jon-Jacques) [2013] QB 1, per Lord Judge C.J. at [39]).

. The evidence presented in each of these situations suggests that Bob should be judged guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

In order to prove that Bob is guilty of manslaughter, it is important to emphasize the facts of the case. Bob admitted that he pushed Gary, and it is possible that his actions led to Gary’s death. Additionally, Bob’s loss of control and lack of expectation that Gary would land on the wooden barrel and break his neck suggest that his actions were reckless and negligent. Furthermore, the incident occurred in the heat of the moment and Bob had no intention of killing Gary. All of this indicates that Bob should be found guilty of manslaughter.

In addition to the arguments outlined above, Bob’s lawyer should also consider highlighting the mitigating factors in favor of Bob’s case. This could include Bob’s lack of a violent history and the fact that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment after learning of Gary’s affair. Furthermore, Bob’s lawyer should consider arguing that the coroner’s report indicates that Gary’s death was an accident and that Bob had no intention of killing him. Finally, Bob’s lawyer should consider arguing that Bob has shown remorse for his actions and is willing to accept a lesser charge of manslaughter. These arguments should be presented in order to demonstrate Bob’s lack of intent to commit murder and to support the case for a plea deal with the prosecutor for a lesser charge of manslaughter.

Bob’s lawyer should also consider highlighting the fact that Bob has been cooperative throughout the investigation and has a strong support system of family and friends who can vouch for his character. This could be used to demonstrate that Bob is not a danger to society and is capable of rehabilitation and reform. Additionally, Bob’s lawyer should consider arguing that the sentence for manslaughter should be lenient given Bob’s lack of intent and the mitigating factors in his favor. These arguments should be presented in order to demonstrate Bob’s lack of intention to commit murder and to support the case for a plea deal with the prosecutor for a lesser charge of manslaughter and a lenient sentence.