Principles of Criminal Law and Business Law

Question: Discuss about the Principles of Criminal Law and Business Law. Answer: Introduction: One of the trials that have been ongoing in the recent past and had and a judgment made in the recent past is that of Michael Geoffrey Hutchison who was accused of murdering his wife. The defendant had been charged with killing his wife in the march of 2015 after she went missing. There have been many incidences that have come within the trial, but the judgment made it clear that Michael was not guilty of murder as charged but rather manslaughter. Michael had been accused of killing his wife after he found out that she was about to know the details him mortgaging their family house without first consulting her (Smith, 2017). However, there was no sufficient evidence to link the defendant to the murder, and thus there was the need to acquit him of the offense. However, a few details from his past whereby he claimed to have fraudulently obtained about $30000 from Barclays finance limited resulted to his credibility being brought into books. Michaels father who was also brought to the t rial as a witness claimed that his son had told him that he had disposed the body but could not altogether state where the body was buried. It is crucial to note that at this point, the police and other investigations bodies have not been able to recover the body for further forensic analysis. This issue complicates the issue since there is a lack of evidence to support the case brought forward by the defendant. The court ruled for the defendant exonerating him from the murder accusation but stating that he was guilty of manslaughter There are some key legal issues that need to be proven in this situation to understand whether the defendant was guilty of murder or not. One of the key legal issues that were a matter of contention, in this case, is that of Mens Rea. Mens Rea is described as the guilty mind that pushes one to commit a crime (Moore, 2010). In each and every crime that takes place, the individual accused must have planned before hand to undertake the action. This state of the mind that places one in such a situation is what leads the person to commit the crime, and the prosecutor must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had pre-planned the action (Asworth Horder, 2013). In this scenario, there is no evidence presented to the jury to showcase that Michael had pre- planned to kill his wife while taking the mortgage. It is also essential to understand that by taking the mortgage, the action has no direct relation to the death or disappearance of the wife. Although the defendant had previous cases of crime, there was no evidence linking him with engaging in a physical confrontation but rather fraud. The precedence of the DPP V Morgan required the court to understand the intention of the piece of legislation rather than trying to impose it on defendants (Farmer, 2017). The prosecution also needs to showcase the how past activities may have led to the crime having to take place. The other legal issue that requires being identified in this case is that of Actus Reus. Actus Reus is described as the criminal act that occurred. For a crime to take place their need to ensure that a criminal offense took place (Lanham et al., 2006). One cannot be claimed to have committed a crime in any case the actual action cannot be proven. In the case, presented the prosecution cannot show that the actual action took place and are accusing the defendant just out of assumptions. The prosecution must also present evidence to the court that aims to prove that the accused took part in the crime (Saree, 2016). The other factor that is considered in determining whether an act was a crime is determining whether it voluntary or not. It is important to understand that if a person undertook an action involuntarily, they could not be blamed for the same. It is also very essential to ensure that Michael, the defendant is undertaken for psychological tests to determine whether his mind is in stable condition. This is because this can work in his defense if he is found to have some mental instability (Wondemaghen, 2014). One of the important factors that should be noted is that Mens Rea and Actus Reus go hand in hand and they must be proven for a person to be found guilty. The absence of one from the proceedings relegates the same from being a crime. To deal with this issue, I would take several approaches. One of the approaches I would undertake is ensuring that there are witnesses and sufficient evidence. As far as this case is concerned no sufficient evidence that was presented. Therefore, it would be an injustice to have the defendant being found guilty. The prosecution has the mandate to ensure that the jury is convoked beyond any reasonable doubt. In this case, the court acquitted the defendant of the murder charges but found him culpable of manslaughter. In consideration of the judgment, I think the jury was right to acquit the defendant of murder charges; however, they should also have had him acquitted of the manslaughter charges. This is because there was no evidence whatsoever that linked the defendant to the murder of the victim and has the proceedings showcase the victim disappeared, and no one is sure of her death. This is based on legal requirements that need the same to be proven before one can be found guilty of a crime (Quilter, 2014). References Smith,L. (2017, March 22). Retrieved from www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/crime-and-justice/townsville-jury-reaches-verdict-in-hutchinson-murder-trial/news-story/586c223a7d51c7e06efddb00b5ac1f59 Moore, N. J. (2010). Mens Rea Standards in Lawyer Disciplinary Codes.Geo. J. Legal Ethics,23, 1. Ashworth, A., Horder, J. (2013).Principles of criminal law. Oxford University Press. Lanham, D., Wood, D., Bartal, B., Evans, R. (2006).Criminal laws in Australia. Federation Press. Sarre, R. (2016). Recent legal developments in Australia.Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology,49(1), 152-156. Wondemaghen, M. (2014). Depressed but not legally mentally impaired.International journal of law and psychiatry,37(2), 160-167. Quilter, J. (2014). One-punch laws, mandatory minimums and'alcohol-fuelled'as an aggravating factor: implications for NSW criminal law. Farmer, L. (2017). DPP v. Morgan.