The Perfect Crime – II
In
R v Thornton (1996) the victim was particularly abusive towards his wife and on
the day in question he threw his wife out of the house after abusing her
together with a suitcase filled with her clothes.
She
returned later that day and tried to patch things up and the victim was even
more abusive towards her. She then went into the kitchen and grabbed hold of a
kitchen knife and she tried to patch things up again but her husband continued
to be abusive and finally she stabbed him in the stomach with the kitchen knife
and killed him.
She
was charged with murder and at her trial she raised the defense of diminished
responsibility but she did not raise the defense of provocation. The judge
however did direct the jury on provocation. The jury convicted the accused for
murder and the accused appeal. Her appeal was allowed on the grounds that she
suffered from a syndrome called battered women’s syndrome.
From
the decisions in the above cases we can come to the conclusion that provocation
will most likely not be a valid defense for a charge of murder in cases involving
battered women and the option of diminished responsibility looks to be the much
better option. Therefore, in order for our fictional heroine to commit the
perfect crime she has to play the role of an abused wife i.e. she has to be of
timid disposition, there have to be some visible traces or evidence of abuse -
if the neighbors can testify that they heard screaming and yelling coming from
the house it would be better and it would go towards showing that the accused
was for all intense and purposes subjected to repeated abuse. Even if the
neighbors cannot testify that there was physical abuse they can at least
testify that there was verbal abuse.
And
the type of words and phrases that we are looking for? - well we are looking
for sentences or phrases with foul language and were looking for sentences or
phrases that suggest that the victim intended to do some type of harm to the
accused i.e. phrases and sentences like “I’m going to hurt you” and “I’m going
to kill you” etc. - anything for that matter that would instill fear in an
ordinary person.
Moving
on we’ll also try and prove that our heroine, because of the abuse she had been
subjected to developed what is called Battered Women’s Syndrome (BWS). For
starters Battered Women’s Syndrome is a mental disorder and that will allow us
to go for the defense of diminished responsibility. It develops over a period
of time after the wife has been subjected to repeated abuse, either verbal or
physical, and it makes the wife feel helpless or defenseless.
That
doesn’t however mean that the relationship is stormy all the time and there may
be patches where the victim tries to make up for the abuse and smoothen things
over and things appear fine for a certain time and then it starts all over
again. So, it is a vicious repetitive cycle that the wife is subjected to and
it eventually leads to her developing the syndrome. All of these factors are
adduced by evidence and can be tailored with the exception of medical evidence.
Let’s
say that our fictional heroine manages to play the role perfectly and that she
can rely on the defense of diminished responsibility to have a conviction of
murder reduced to manslaughter.
However,
there is another defense available for our accused to escape liability and that
is the defense of self-defense and we’ll rely on the decision in Beckford v R
(1988) to establish that our accused acted in self-defense.
In
Beckford v R (1988) the police received a phone call from someone claiming to
be the victim’s sister stating that the victim was armed with a gun and was
holding his mother hostage. The police in response sent an armed unit to
investigate and as the police officers entered the house, the accused saw
someone running out the back door.
The
accused followed and the victim turned around holding what appeared to be a gun
and pointed it at him. The accused retaliated by opening fire and the victim
was killed. As it turned out the victim was not holding a gun and no gun was
ever found. The accused was charged with murder.
At
the trial, the judge directed the jury that the accused in instances of
self-defense is only entitled to use reasonable force as opposed to excessive
force and if the force that is used is excessive then the accused can be
convicted for murder. The jury found that the force that was used was excessive
and accordingly convicted the accused for murder.
The
accused appealed. The conviction was quashed and it was decided that the jury
were misdirected. The accused in cases of self-defense is entitled to use as
much force as he or she honestly believes is appropriate in the given
circumstances. In this particular instance because the accused honestly
believed that the victim was holding a gun he was deemed to be acting in
self-defense when he opened fire and therefore adjudged to be not guilty.
In
order to commit the perfect crime our fictional heroine, who for all intense
and purposes, is a battered wife and has played the part perfectly, despite
suffering from a syndrome which gives her a defense, acts or reacts in
self-defense i.e. she does something to make her husband attack her and in
order to protect herself she unwittingly or unintentionally stabs him. Relying
on Beckford v R (1988) our accused can use the force that she deems necessary
to protect herself. Will it work or does it belong within the pages of a book?
Well if our fictional heroine plays her role perfectly she should get away with
a slap on the wrist and it is worth keeping in mind that in this work of
fiction the intention to kill was always there.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment