Introduction
This memorandum highlights the circumstances and facts behind the death of Pamela Langley and the subsequent trial of the accused, Mr. Scott Graham, under the London Homicide Act of 1957 for murder charges. Mr. Graham hit the deceased on the head while at her home using a blunt object. The Homicide Act of 1957 and any other applicable case law is critical for this case as pinpointed below in the paper.
Facts
On October 15, 2005, a renowned defense notary Mr. Howrah returned home from work and found his wife Pamela Langley lying dead at the entrance of their house.
The evidence gathered from the scene of crime testifies that the deceased and the accused had a fight; judging from the crime scene it was aggressive. Subsequently, there was Mr. Graham’s arrest and the charge for the first degree murder. A few days after Graham’s arrest, the defendant’s mother being an accomplice to the murder faced similar charges. Three days later after the murder, she agreed to give some evidence against her son as a way of securing her release. She revealed in her testimony the motive behind the cruel murder of the deceased by her son.
On February 16, 2006, the defendant’s former housewife gave testimony during a preliminary hearing as she had found some gruesome objects in the dresser drawer at the defendant’s house, some time before the murder of Mrs. Pamela Langley.
On February 17, 2006, the prosecution spoke in support of the accused in front of the jury. In their submission, they said that the accused hit a 52 year old, Mrs. Pamela, twenty six times with a blunt object on the head and other parts of the body. The prosecution also stressed on the fact that the accused attacked the deceased in her cabinet, where he hit her to death; after that he tattooed a gothic symbol on the defendant’s back. The defense team pleaded alibi and informed the jury that the accused was at home on the fateful day when Mrs. Pamela was murdered.
On August 1, 2006, Mr. Howrah (Mrs. Pamela’s husband) gave a testimony in which he described in detail the nature of the scene of crime; everything that happened as it was when he came back home from work. He testified that he found his wife Pamela lying dead at the entrance of their house. The DNA expert confirmed in his testimony that he found Mrs. Pamela’s blood on the mask, glove and bag found in a dumped van outside the home of the accused.
Issues are as follows
- Whether the accused is guilty of murdering Mrs. Pamela Langley within the provisions of the law.
- Whether the accused should be sentenced to a life sentence for the murder of Mrs. Pamela Langley as stipulated under the law.
Rule
Under the London Homicide Act of 1957, there are two substantial elements which are to be proved in this first degree murder case. The first one is whether the killing is unlawful, and, secondly, whether the person considered guilty used an unjustifiable force to protect herself. This Act classifies murder as the first degree one if the accused kills an aged person or another person other than the intended target (Dine 48).
Interpretation of this Act brings the inference that actions or acts of an accused person should directly or indirectly result into the death of the target. This Act emphasizes the fact that the death should not arise out of an unknown risk. If the act causing death varies from the one which is initiated by the accused, a charge on murder is not easily sustained.
Application
Under the Homicide Act of 1957, there are two elements that must be met in order to prove the charge of murder against the accused. The prosecution has to establish the following:
- Malice aforethought malice refers to the state of mind of an accused person before he or she commits an offence (Katz 128). The prosecution in this case carefully studies the activities that the accused got engaged into prior to the commission of an offence.
- Actus reus refers to acts immediately following the death, which must coincide or be a direct result of the ill motive of the accused. The assumption made is that the death must be caused by the actions of the accused. The prosecution in this case has to prove a link between the express intentions of the accused and the corresponding act of his motive.
In regards to malice aforethought listed above, it is clear from the testimony of the defendant’s mother, that there was a reason behind the killing of Mrs. Pamela Langley by her son. Her testimony corroborates that of the housewife, who testifies to have found a gruesome to-do list in the dresser drawer in the defendant’s house. In Matthews and Allyne 2 Cr App court of appeal, two principles that establish the intentions of an accused person are set. First, it has to be established that the accused has a clear intention in his or her mind towards the murder (Regensburger 234); motives are to be expressed in actions or implied by them. Second, it has to prove that the death did not arise by chance, and that the accused did nothing to help the deceased. The contrary is established in this case as evidence proves that there was a violent fight between the accused and the deceased.
The second part involves establishing the actus reus. Witness testimony in this case proves that the accused hit the deceased twenty six times with a blunt object. This leaves no doubt that the accused had a premeditated mind in killing the accused.
The defense of alibi raised by the defendant’s legal team is insufficient and lacks merit in this case. There is no evidence adduced to prove that the accused was absent at the scene of crime, neither does the defense team inform the jury on where the accused was on the day when Mrs. Pamela Langley died. In fact, an eye witness testimony proves that the accused hit the deceased. This is further corroborated with the findings of the DNA expert, who discovered Mrs. Pamela’s stains of blood on a bag and mask belonging to the accused.
Conclusion
The prosecution has established all the essential elements that are necessary in the proof of this charge as required under the London Homicide Act of 1957. There is clear evidence which directly links the accused with the crime scene. There is no doubt left that the accused is the killer of Mrs. Pamela Langley. The case should be decided in favor of the prosecution, and a sentence must be issued accordingly as provided under the law.
References
Dine, Jane. Cases and Materials on Criminal Law. London: Oxford University Press: 2008. Print.
Katz, Leo. Foundation of Criminal Law. New York: Foundation Press, 1999. Print.
Regensburger, Derrek. Criminal Evidence: From Crime Scene to Court Room. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2011. Print.