Attempted murder, person already dead

lifeandtimes

Question.

If someone went to someone's house to murder someone and that person was already dead.

What crime has been committed of any?

For argument sake it is premeditated but it has been proven that someone else unrelated to the first peron has killed the victim.

Thanks

L1011

None surely? Intent to commit may have existed but as the substantive offence would be impossible it can't exist.

coylemj

No crime committed, you cannot be guilty of conspiring with yourself. By which I mean that if two people had gone to carry out the murder, they could be convicted of conspiracy to murder but one person cannot be so guilty. I don't think the fact that the person is already dead is relevant, the intent is what matters, not the end result.....

There was a case (R. v. Brown, 1899, 24 QBD 357) in the UK where a pickpocket stuck his hand in a punter's pocket at a race meeting. He was convicted of attempted theft even though the police had to admit that the particular pocket was empty. The court held that that you could be guilty of an attempt to commit a crime even though it was physically impossible to execute the deed. I would see that applying in the case of two people conspiring to murder a person who in fact was already dead.

seamus

Yeah, it could fall into attempted murder. It's a relatively rare one for a prosecution to bring unless the accused has actually made an unsuccessful attempt. The main issue is proving that the accused went beyond merely preparing to kill, and instead was acting with intent to kill but was thwarted in the act.

Edit: Impossibility may actually be a defence to the charge, i.e. you cannot be convicted of attempted murder if the intended victim is already dead.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, it could fall into attempted murder. It's a relatively rare one for a prosecution to bring unless the accused has actually made an unsuccessful attempt. The main issue is proving that the accused went beyond merely preparing to kill, and instead was acting with intent to kill but was thwarted in the act.

Edit: Impossibility may actually be a defence to the charge, i.e. you cannot be convicted of attempted murder if the intended victim is already dead.

If you ever post anything like that again, i swear i'll /Mod deletion/ kill you stone dead!! :mad:




I'd imagine I'm now also guilty of the same crime as the OP. I've told Seamus I'll kill him, but i haven't done it. There's an argument for assault, but if seamus were already dead, i don't think he would be offended or feel assaulted, so therefore can't bring charges against me...?

fritzelly

Because said victim was already dead when you got there does not excuse you from a criminal charge of intent to kill if the intent can be proved

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/14/section/9/enacted/en/html 2 part c

Indeed people have been convicted of it, even just recently

Glass fused light

Deleted User wrote: »

If you ever post anything like that again, i swear i'll /Mod deletion/ kill you stone dead!! :mad:




I'd imagine I'm now also guilty of the same crime as the OP. I've told Seamus I'll kill him, but i haven't done it. There's an argument for assault, but if seamus were already dead, i don't think he would be offended or feel assaulted, so therefore can't bring charges against me...?

Yes but if you track his IP to locate his abode, turn up in wellies, rubber apron and gloves, carrying a large axe, and had a pick axe, a shovel, plastic wrap and duck tape would your fellow boardsies convict you?

coylemj

fritzelly wrote: »

Because said victim was already dead when you got there does not excuse you from a criminal charge of intent to kill if the intent can be proved

Can a single person be convicted of having an 'intent to kill'?

OP's hypothetical suspect goes to his would-be victim's house with the intent of killing him, finds the the cops and an ambulance at the scene and learns that the person is already dead. He doesn't break into the house and doesn't pull a weapon on anyone, alive or dead so realistically he can't be charged with attempted murder. In fact I can't see that any crime is disclosed.

fritzelly

coylemj wrote: »

Can a single person be convicted of having an 'intent to kill'?

OP's hypothetical suspect goes to his would-be victim's house with the intent of killing him, finds the the cops and an ambulance at the scene and learns that the person is already dead. He doesn't break into the house and doesn't pull a weapon on anyone, alive or dead so realistically he can't be charged with attempted murder. In fact I can't see that any crime is disclosed.

Why cannot an individual have an intent to murder - no so sure why it needs to be a group? What do you call a group of individuals of murderous intent? A crow of murderers?

Intent to kill doesn't suddenly happen the moment you knock on the door - people are convicted of such intent way before they even get that far.
Tho the semantics of attempted murder and intent to murder are different and not so sure how they are dealt with in law, tho the former probably being a more serious offence as you were in the act of trying kill someone

Trying to remember the case from a few years ago where your women hired someone on craigs list or the likes in Ireland to kill her husband - was she not convicted along with the guy that took the "contract"...? Does it really matter that they were, as in the OP, already dead?

veronymus

In Ireland, there is limited but instructive authority to suggest that impossibility may not be relied upon as a defence. The Law Reform Commission (Consultation Paper on Inchoate Offences - 2008) recommend that impossibility should not bar liability for attempt, conspiracy or incitement.

The Commission point to Walsh J.’s obiter comments in Attorney General v Sullivan [1964] where he stated, “the ultimate impossibility of achieving or carrying out the crime attempted is not a defence to a charge of an attempt.”

Although the Commission concede that “ the position in Ireland on impossible attempts [and presumably other inchoate offences] cannot be stated with certainty”, they contend that, “most likely it is the same subjectivist approach that the Commission wishes to provisionally recommend.”

coylemj

fritzelly wrote: »

Why cannot an individual have an intent to murder

He can but even if you can prove his intent, what is his crime if he doesn't actually make an attempt to carry it out?

fritzelly wrote: »

What do you call a group of individuals of murderous intent?

A conspiracy.

Glass fused light

fritzelly wrote: »

Why cannot an individual have an intent to murder - no so sure why it needs to be a group? What do you call a group of individuals of murderous intent? A crow of murderers?

Intent to kill doesn't suddenly happen the moment you knock on the door - people are convicted of such intent way before they even get that far.
Tho the semantics of attempted murder and intent to murder are different and not so sure how they are dealt with in law, tho the former probably being a more serious offence as you were in the act of trying kill someone

Trying to remember the case from a few years ago where your women hired someone on craigs list or the likes in Ireland to kill her husband - was she not convicted along with the guy that took the "contract"...? Does it really matter that they were, as in the OP, already dead?

I don't think intent even has to have a defined target, take the illegal gun taken off some of the drug gang members, the carrier may not ever have been intended as the shooter so not know who the intended victim was, but the intent is that the victim would be murdered with the gun. Or is that just media speak for unlicensed gun?

coylemj

Glass fused light wrote: »

I don't think intent even has to have a defined target, take the illegal gun taken off some of the drug gang members, the carrier may not ever have been intended as the shooter so not know who the intended victim was, but the intent is that the victim would be murdered with the weapon. Or is that just media speak for unlicensed gun?

A shooter never goes to a 'hit' by himself, there's always a getaway driver which means they can both be charged with conspiracy to murder person or persons unknown. But if a lone person is found carrying a loaded gun, I don't believe he can be charged with anything more than possession of an illegal firearm.

coylemj

veronymus wrote: »

In Ireland, there is limited but instructive authority to suggest that impossibility may not be relied upon as a defence. The Law Reform Commission (Consultation Paper on Inchoate Offences - 2008) recommend that impossibility should not bar liability for attempt, conspiracy or incitement.

+1 and which cites R. v. Brown (1899) that I mentioned in post #3. That case overturned an earlier ruling (R. v. Collins) of 1864.

2.131 The “factual” impossibility label is applied to the situation where the accused attempts to do something, which is indeed a crime, but because of facts unknown to them, cannot possibly be achieved. A classic example is the “missing booty” case where the defendant tries to pickpocket an empty pocket. It is impossible to commit theft in this situation, but the actor does not know this. In R v Brown[243] and R v Ring[244] pick-pocketing an empty pocket was held to be an attempt to steal. But earlier, in R v Collins,[245] the opposite was held.[246]

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cp48.htm#_Toc191112715

fritzelly

coylemj wrote: »

A shooter never goes to a 'hit' by himself, there's always a getaway driver which means they can both be charged with conspiracy to murder person or persons unknown. But if a lone person is found carrying a loaded gun, I don't believe he can be charged with anything more than possession of an illegal firearm.

Maybe he didn't conspire but was an accessory to the intent - he can't be charged as a conspirator if he never intended to kill

coylemj

fritzelly wrote: »

Maybe he didn't conspire but was an accessory to the intent ....

An accessory to the intent A crime has to be committed in order for anyone to be guilty as an accessory.

fritzelly wrote: »

he can't be charged as a conspirator if he never intended to kill

He can't be charged as a conspirator regardless. You cannot conspire with yourself.

veronymus

Also of note is the relatively old case of R v White (1910) - where a son attempted to poison his mother but she died of natural causes. He was nevertheless convicted of attempted murder. Bet he wished he had held out.;)

The White case differs from the hypothetical in the op as the son had taken all possible steps necessary. I think it may come down to an assessment of whether the attempt was 'proximate' to the actual commission of the substantive offence?

coylemj

veronymus wrote: »

The White case differs from the hypothetical in the op as the son had taken all possible steps necessary. I think it may come down to an assessment of whether the attempt was 'proximate' to the actual commission of the substantive offence?

+1 I'm assuming that the OP's would-be assassin didn't actually do anything when he arrived on the scene and found that his planned victim was already dead. In which case I say there is no crime disclosed.

Had he broken into the dead man's house and/or drawn a gun to shoot him, there may be a case for charging him with attempted murder. But if he simply showed up and went home again, I can see no basis for charging him with anything.

Victor

To be charged with a serious offence, one only needs to have intended to commit a serious offence, not necessarily the same serious offence or the same victim.

So if Anto does a drive-by shooting of Deco's house, not realising that Deco was killed the previous day in a car crash, Anto could still be charged with attempted murder (or murder if he kills someone else).

coylemj wrote: »

A shooter never goes to a 'hit' by himself, there's always a getaway driver which means they can both be charged with conspiracy to murder person or persons unknown.

Of course, both shooter and driver can be charged with the common enterprise of (attempted) murder.

But if a lone person is found carrying a loaded gun, I don't believe he can be charged with anything more than possession of an illegal firearm.

This may depend on circumstances - isn't there a charge of possession with intent to kill? Also charged with possession of ammunition. "possession of an illegal firearm" may not apply - the firearm may be properly licenced.

Glass fused light

Victor wrote: »

coylemj wrote: »

But if a lone person is found carrying a loaded gun, I don't believe he can be charged with anything more than possession of an illegal firearm.

This may depend on circumstances - isn't there a charge of possession with intent to kill? Also charged with possession of ammunition. "possession of an illegal firearm" may not apply - the firearm may be properly licenced.

Possesion of ammunition even spent ammunition requires a licence, if in posession of any pieces, the charge would be under the different sections.

Excluding circumstance where there has a failed discharge at the corpse, wandering around a public, or turning up with a properly licensed one to a premises could not used to infer any more intent that carrying a bunch of flowers.

Peregrinus

Glass fused light wrote: »

Possesion of ammunition even spent ammunition requires a licence, if in posession of any pieces, the charge would be under the different sections.

Excluding circumstance where there has a failed discharge at the corpse, wandering around a public, or turning up with a properly licensed one to a premises could not used to infer any more intent that carrying a bunch of flowers.

No, but other circumstances might make your intention clear. If I leave the house, carrying my legally-held bazooka, and telling my wife and little ones that I'm just popping round to your place to kill you, and I shoot at your house and utterly destroy it but you happen to be out, I can obviously be charged with attempted murder. Now suppose just as I shoot a heroic bystander tackles me and knocks me off balance so my bazooka misses your house, I can still be charged with the same offence. Now suppose the tackle comes ten seconds earlier, so I don't get to fire the bazooka at all; can I still be charged with attempted murder?

Now consider those same three scenarios but with one twist in each case; unbeknownst to me, you died of alcoholic poisoning an hour previously. Now can I be charged with attempted murder? No matter how fully and successfully I had carried out my plans, I could not possibly have murdered you. Can it be attempted murder to attempt to do something which, if actually done, would not be murder?

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can it be attempted murder to attempt to do something which, if actually done, would not be murder?

When you caused or were indifferent to grievous harm to someone else in that house, yes.

So, I suppose these needs to be a living person that could be killed by your amateur rocketry.

Peregrinus

I think that's the key. If the course of action that I am attempting to carry out would, if I succeeded in carrying it out, result in the crime of X, then I can be charged with attempted X.

But if the successful completion of the course of action would not be a crime at all, can I be charged with an attempt?

Suppose you hang up your coat and I go through the pockets, intending to steal your wallet. To my lasting regret, your wallet is not there. Attempted theft?

Glass fused light

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, but other circumstances might make your intention clear. If I leave the house, carrying my legally-held bazooka, and telling my wife and little ones that I'm just popping round to your place to kill you, and I shoot at your house and utterly destroy it but you happen to be out, I can obviously be charged with attempted murder. Now suppose just as I shoot a heroic bystander tackles me and knocks me off balance so my bazooka misses your house, I can still be charged with the same offence. Now suppose the tackle comes ten seconds earlier, so I don't get to fire the bazooka at all; can I still be charged with attempted murder?

Now consider those same three scenarios but with one twist in each case; unbeknownst to me, you died of alcoholic poisoning an hour previously. Now can I be charged with attempted murder? No matter how fully and successfully I had carried out my plans, I could not possibly have murdered you. Can it be attempted murder to attempt to do something which, if actually done, would not be murder?

First you would be charged with illegal possession. Ignoring that.

The attempt comes from the intended outcome of an action not the actual outcome. So if the person carrying out the act is not aware the act would result in no actual death or in the case above possibly the "wrong" death, if i have a visitor staying in the house etc has their action have progressed sufficiently as to prove they intended a specific outcome. Eg I believe you have a deadly allergy to nuts, carry an epie pen and have been told the next attack is likely to be fatal (it's your twin not you), so I bake you brown bread with ground up nuts and feed it to you without you realising the nuts are there, have I attempted to murder you, although it would not be fatal to you, only your twin?

a proactive action (or number there of) is an attempt so for the sake of debate if the charge covers 'I was as unaware of you being out' is it not unreasonable to accept the 'I was unaware of you being dead' as a reason not to charge as these are defences against the charge?
the first of your examples (in an ideal world) is a definite on the charge and probably get a conviction from a reasonable jury after the "sure wasn't yer wan dead anyway" (instead of the "sure wasn't yer wan out anyway") defence fails.
The second is a definite charge and probably conviction from a reasonable jury after the "it was not my fault anyway, blame him, he pushed me" defence.
The third is a maybe charge after the "I changed my mind I just wanted to scare the ..... a little" defence.

PS the wallet is covered in post 3

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

If you ever post anything like that again, i swear i'll /Mod deletion/ kill you stone dead!! :mad:

I'd imagine I'm now also guilty of the same crime as the OP. I've told Seamus I'll kill him, but i haven't done it. There's an argument for assault, but if seamus were already dead, i don't think he would be offended or feel assaulted, so therefore can't bring charges against me...?

As a lay person, this is a really interesting topic, I'm glad the OP asked it.

As others have mentioned, there are a number of hurdles one has to jump to make an attempt charge stick.

For a start, you need to have gone through all of the preparatory steps. The prosecution would have to show that the accused was fully equipped - both with weapons and the information necessary - to carry out the murder.

Proximity to the act then is another test. If the police were to raid your house at 2am and find all of the equipment for a murder you want to do next week, then it's not attempted murder. There are still several more things that would need to happen before you carry out a murder.
If they catch you with a sniper rifle sticking out of the window on the top floor of a building, waiting for my car to drive past in the next few minutes, then you're much more likely to be charged.

veronymus

seamus wrote: »

As a lay person, this is a really interesting topic, I'm glad the OP asked it.

As others have mentioned, there are a number of hurdles one has to jump to make an attempt charge stick.

For a start, you need to have gone through all of the preparatory steps. The prosecution would have to show that the accused was fully equipped - both with weapons and the information necessary - to carry out the murder.

Proximity to the act then is another test. If the police were to raid your house at 2am and find all of the equipment for a murder you want to do next week, then it's not attempted murder. There are still several more things that would need to happen before you carry out a murder.
If they catch you with a sniper rifle sticking out of the window on the top floor of a building, waiting for my car to drive past in the next few minutes, then you're much more likely to be charged.

I think you are spot on. From the op, the necessary mens rea is present - intent, and impossibility is not a defence.

The only matter then to be decided is whether the would-be killer has satisfied the 'proximity rule' adopted here in AG v Sullivan.The act must go beyond than mere preparation but need not go so far as to constitute the 'last act' in an attempt. Abandonment after the proximate act is satisfied would not then provide a defence.

lifeandtimes

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Some interesting responses, i didnt realise it would open up such a debate.

The scenario is as the op describes, the would be murderer shows up to thw house with intent to kill this person and they discover them dead.

The orignal murder is found via ome other means and is confirmed as the killer.

We can add more like, the would be would be killer had a loaded gun and when the cops arrived found him standing there but ultimately CCTV proved he didnt do it but it was quite obvious he was there to kill someone.

How does that fair, can he be charged with intent for an already dead person?

Feel free to add your own information you would like to have discussed.

osarusan

There was a bizarre Canadian case involving police officer James Forcillo, who was charged with both the murder and attempted murder of Sammy Yatim.

He was acquitted of murder - presumably the defense thought that he had reasonable grounds for firing the first set of three bullets at Yatim.

However, after Yatim was hit by the first set of bullets and clearly incapacitated (in fact, already dead), he fired another set of six bullets, and was convicted of attempted murder, of a person who was already dead.

Glass fused light

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Some interesting responses, i didnt realise it would open up such a debate.

The scenario is as the op describes, the would be murderer shows up to thw house with intent to kill this person and they discover them dead.

The orignal murder is found via ome other means and is confirmed as the killer.

We can add more like, the would be would be killer had a loaded gun and when the cops arrived found him standing there but ultimately CCTV proved he didnt do it but it was quite obvious he was there to kill someone.

How does that fair, can he be charged with intent for an already dead person?

Feel free to add your own information you would like to have discussed.

The loaded gun is a bit of a misdirect IMO it would have to be gun the person had no legal right to be in posession of. There is no provision for a 'civilian' to even hold a firearm for defensive reasons (the shooting fourm guys are waiting, with popcorn at the ready, for some of the other posters to apply on this basis, be refused and take the Super to court).
As i understand it there is no obligation to conceal in this country only to secure. So in theory I can call into the bank with my legally held firearm and not be charged with any offence. Granted if someone calls the Gardai, they may seize and try not to renew the licence, Edit [but bring me to court for attempted armed robbery or even succeeding in not renewing the licence is not a sure thing.] end edit.
But in either situation of I keep my mouth shut, the Gardai can't infer from my having it in my possession.

veronymus

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Some interesting responses, i didnt realise it would open up such a debate.

The scenario is as the op describes, the would be murderer shows up to thw house with intent to kill this person and they discover them dead.

The orignal murder is found via ome other means and is confirmed as the killer.

We can add more like, the would be would be killer had a loaded gun and when the cops arrived found him standing there but ultimately CCTV proved he didnt do it but it was quite obvious he was there to kill someone.

How does that fair, can he be charged with intent for an already dead person?

Feel free to add your own information you would like to have discussed.

I don't think that the situation you paint here necessarily implies an attempt to commit murder. It could just as easily amount to aggravated burglary without more evidence.

veronymus

osarusan wrote: »

There was a bizarre Canadian case involving police officer James Forcillo, who was charged with both the murder and attempted murder of Sammy Yatim.

He was acquitted of murder - presumably the defense thought that he had reasonable grounds for firing the first set of three bullets at Yatim.

However, after Yatim was hit by the first set of bullets and clearly incapacitated (in fact, already dead), he fired another set of six bullets, and was convicted of attempted murder, of a person who was already dead.

Another case on point is that of Daniel Darrington who was sentenced to 8 years in Australia in 2016 for attempted murder. He fired three shots into the head of a corpse.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

Suppose you hang up your coat and I go through the pockets, intending to steal your wallet. To my lasting regret, your wallet is not there. Attempted theft?

Yes, R. v. Brown (1899, see post #3) refers to that exact scenario (attempt to pick an empty pocket) and established the principle that you can be guilty of an attempt to commit a crime even though it was physically impossible for you to commit the crime.

coylemj

lifeandtimes wrote: »

We can add more like, the would be would be killer had a loaded gun and when the cops arrived found him standing there but ultimately CCTV proved he didnt do it but it was quite obvious he was there to kill someone.

As a would-be sole assassin, it would be very difficult to prove intent since the entirety of his plan is in his head. In all probability he would claim that he had the gun for self-defence, a pretty plausible story in the current climate with tit for tat executions happening every other week in Dublin.

Even if they could somehow prove that he intended to kill that (now dead from other causes) person, what is the crime if he simply turns up to the guy's house but does nothing? Can arming yourself with a gun constitute attempted murder if you don't even take the gun out of your pocket, let alone shoot at anyone, dead or alive?

Glass fused light

coylemj wrote: »

As a would-be sole assassin, it would be very difficult to prove intent since the entirety of his plan is in his head. In all probability he would claim that he had the gun for self-defence, a pretty plausible story in the current climate with tit for tat executions happening every other week in Dublin.

Even if they could somehow prove that he intended to kill that (now dead from other causes) person, what is the crime if he simply turns up to the guy's house but does nothing? Can arming yourself with a gun constitute attempted murder if you don't even take the gun out of your pocket, let alone shoot at anyone, dead or alive?

by that utterance he has convicted himself of premeditation to kill persons as yet unknown.

lifeandtimes

coylemj wrote: »

As a would-be sole assassin, it would be very difficult to prove intent since the entirety of his plan is in his head. In all probability he would claim that he had the gun for self-defence, a pretty plausible story in the current climate with tit for tat executions happening every other week in Dublin.

Even if they could somehow prove that he intended to kill that (now dead from other causes) person, what is the crime if he simply turns up to the guy's house but does nothing? Can arming yourself with a gun constitute attempted murder if you don't even take the gun out of your pocket, let alone shoot at anyone, dead or alive?

What if the cops then checked his home and found plans of his to kill said person but none of which were executed as said person was already dead.

Is it a crime to plan out murder to a t but not do it?

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Suppose you hang up your coat and I go through the pockets, intending to steal your wallet. To my lasting regret, your wallet is not there. Attempted theft?

Not only this, but I keep an under-fed ferret in my jacket.

Glass fused light wrote: »

As i understand it there is no obligation to conceal in this country only to secure. So in theory I can call into the bank with my legally held firearm and not be charged with any offence.

Depending on the circumstances, you could however be charged with breach of the peace and just possibly assault (not battery) for causing undue worry to the bank's staff and users.

On the simple carrying of a firearm. While a farmer wandering down a country lane with a cracked-open shotgun over his shoulder isn't an issue, wandering down a shopping street as if playing Urban Warfare is another matter.

coylemj

lifeandtimes wrote: »

What if the cops then checked his home and found plans of his to kill said person but none of which were executed as said person was already dead.

Plenty of fantasists 'plan' to kill people but never get around to doing it.

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Is it a crime to plan out murder to a t but not do it?

I don't believe it is if there is only one person involved.

coylemj

Glass fused light wrote: »

by that utterance he has convicted himself of premeditation to kill persons as yet unknown.

A very large leap of the imagination there. If I'm a gangster and carry a gun (illegally) for self-defence, I have no premeditation to kill anyone other than the guy who is pointing a gun at me.

Glass fused light

coylemj wrote: »

A very large leap of the imagination there. If I'm a gangster and carry a gun (illegally) for self-defence, I have no premeditation to kill anyone other than the guy who is pointing a gun at me.

No once you utter the words self-defense even as an ordinary person of good character you have a problem, you will not be issued with a licence for self-defense so you are admitting to carrying an offensive weapon.
(The illegal offensive weapon just adds an additional charging option.)

You have now admitted that you intend to use said offensive weapon to murder the guy who is pointing a gun at you .

Stop, avail of your right to silence, before you give the Gardai a list if names too.

Glass fused light

Victor wrote: »

Depending on the circumstances, you could however be charged with breach of the peace and just possibly assault (not battery) for causing undue worry to the bank's staff and users.

These don't require any intent do they? Just that your action impacts on the recipient.

Victor wrote: »

On the simple carrying of a firearm. While a farmer wandering down a country lane with a cracked-open shotgun over his shoulder isn't an issue, wandering down a shopping street as if playing Urban Warfare is another matter.

To be pedantic the carrying without the Urban Warfare (ignoring the BoP & assault) is the same and could be a condition of the licence.
However the licence holder would be a bit of a muppet not to be carrying it concealed in a urban setting.

PS feed the darn ferret before the animal rights crew turn up.

coylemj

Glass fused light wrote: »

No once you utter the words self-defense even as an ordinary person of good character you have a problem, you will not be issued with a licence for self-defense so you are admitting to carrying an offensive weapon.

That is not correct at all at all. What you are saying is that the law cannot countenance somebody carrying a gun for the sole purpose of shooting someone who is out to kill them i.e. for self-defence.

During the Troubles in NI, several hundred civilians (all of them law-abiding citizens) were authorised to carry a firearm for personal protection because the RUC considered them to be a potential targets for IRA/UDA/INLA/UVF assassination squads.

Even today I would expect that a large number of people (e.g. off duty PSNI/prison officers) in NI carry a gun for personal protection. All 100% legal and sanctioned by the state which in a lot of cases supplies the actual weapon.

veronymus

coylemj wrote: »

That is not correct at all at all. What you are saying is that the law cannot countenance somebody carrying a gun for the sole purpose of shooting someone who is out to kill them i.e. for self-defence.

During the Troubles in NI, several hundred civilians (all of them law-abiding citizens) were authorised to carry a firearm for personal protection because the RUC considered them to be a potential targets for IRA/UDA/INLA/UVF assassination squads.

Even today I would expect that a large number of people (e.g. off duty PSNI/prison officers) in NI carry a gun for personal protection. All 100% legal and sanctioned by the state which in a lot of cases supplies the actual weapon.

There is also the case of DPP v Kelso where several RUC officers crossed over the border to socialise in a pub. When they drew their weapons to disperse a hostile crowd, they were charged with unlawful possession (they had no permit to carry this side of the border). They were acquitted on the grounds that the threat posed to their lives gave them a lawful purpose.

GerardKeating

coylemj wrote:

You cannot conspire with yourself.

If one had some form of Multiple personality disorder, could two or more of the seperate identies be charged with conspiricy?

Glass fused light

coylemj wrote: »

That is not correct at all at all. What you are saying is that the law cannot countenance somebody carrying a gun for the sole purpose of shooting someone who is out to kill them i.e. for self-defence.

During the Troubles in NI, several hundred civilians (all of them law-abiding citizens) were authorised to carry a firearm for personal protection because the RUC considered them to be a potential targets for IRA/UDA/INLA/UVF assassination squads.

Even today I would expect that a large number of people (e.g. off duty PSNI/prison officers) in NI carry a gun for personal protection. All 100% legal and sanctioned by the state which in a lot of cases supplies the actual weapon.

I dont know the NI rules but as i understand even during the Troubles the ROI had more restrictive legistation and that we still do. Is it cynically to suggest it is probably to allow the individual to buy the gun rather than the State funding it?

As I understand it self-defense is never a reason for an ordinary licence in Rep of Ireland. And could never be used as a defence in court if found in posession of an unlicensed one.
(hense one of the reasons the drugs gangs are spending money on armoured cars and body armour)

My understanding is that Garda guns are the property of the State, and like the cars are outside normal rules so, the Firearms acts would not apply. Most are specifically designed for policing and military and would likely be illegal and unlicencable under the Firearms acts, due to rapid fire and with large magazine capacity. And the authority to carry is from them being state actors. This authority has to be proactive to allow them to carry as offensive "tools". < I have a vague memory that a post office robber had an actionable case where a garda knocked a wall on him, but would not have if he had been shot.

I think you are correct on the carry in ROI too, from memory, there is a provision where the Minister of Justice can issue some type of ministerial order which permits an ordinary civilian to carry a gun (with 20+ back when CAB started) but that this would also be outside licensing.
And just to be picky, i suspect it's wrapped in some way that shooting someone who is out to kill them was the not the sole purpose.

GM228

veronymus wrote: »

There is also the case of DPP v Kelso where several RUC officers crossed over the border to socialise in a pub. When they drew their weapons to disperse a hostile crowd, they were charged with unlawful possession (they had no permit to carry this side of the border). They were acquitted on the grounds that the threat posed to their lives gave them a lawful purpose.

The Kelso case concerned the principles of imminence IIRC, the principles of which were greatly reduced by the CCA in DPP vs Clarke [1994] 3 IR 289, I wonder would such a position still be held by the courts today.

Very interesting thread by the way.

GM228

GerardKeating wrote: »

If one had some form of Multiple personality disorder, could two or more of the seperate identies be charged with conspiricy?

No, such a disorder is merely a mental health disorder, you are still one person, although as a defence such a disorder could amount to diminished responsibility for various criminal charges.

veronymus

GM228 wrote: »

The Kelso case concerned the principles of imminence IIRC, the principles of which were greatly reduced by the CCA in DPP vs Clarke [1994] 3 IR 289, I wonder would such a position still be held by the courts today.

Very interesting thread by the way.

I probably should have added as much. I think the scenario outlined by coylemj would satisfy the imminence criteria? I imagine it would be different if he/she was to take preemptive action or if the gun was in possession on the mere off-chance of an attack.

coylemj

GerardKeating wrote: »

If one had some form of Multiple personality disorder, could two or more of the seperate identies be charged with conspiricy?

GM228 wrote: »

No, such a disorder is merely a mental health disorder, you are still one person, although as a defence such a disorder could amount to diminished responsibility for various criminal charges.

I'm not so sure, I'd be in two minds about it.

Glass fused light

coylemj wrote: »

I'm not so sure, I'd be in two minds about it.

The exclusion of Gardai
http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1925/act/17/section/2/revised/en/html

FIREARMS ACT 1925
Restrictions on possession, use, and carriage of firearms.

2.— (1) Subject to the exceptions from this section hereinafter mentioned, it shall not be lawful for any person after the commencement of this Act to have in his possession, use, or carry any firearm or ammunition save in so far as such possession, use, or carriage is authorised by a firearm certificate granted under this Act and for the time being in force.

(2) Save in any of the cases hereinafter excepted from this section, every person who after the commencement of this Act has in his possession, uses, or carries any firearm without holding a firearm certificate therefor or otherwise than as authorised by such certificate, or purchases, uses, has in his possession, or carries any ammunition without holding a firearm certificate therefor or in quantities in excess of those authorised by such certificate, or fails to comply with any condition subject to which a firearm certificate was granted to him, shall be guilty of an offence 
.....see act for more...


(3) This section shall not apply to any of the following cases and such cases are accordingly excepted from this section, that is to say:—

( a) the possession or carriage of a firearm under and in accordance with a permit issued under this Act and for the time being in force;

( b) the possession, use, or carriage of a firearm or ammunition by a member of the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann or of a lawful police force in Saorstát Eireann in the performance of his duty as such member;

Intent

http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1925/act/17/section/15/revised/en/html

FIREARMS ACT 1925 
 
F63 [ Possession of firearms with intent to endanger life.

15. — (1) Any person who possesses or controls any firearm or ammunition —

( a ) with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, or

( b ) with intent to enable any other person by means of the firearm or ammunition to endanger life or cause serious injury to property,

shall, whether any injury to person or property has or has not been caused thereby, be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment —

( a ) to imprisonment for life or such shorter term as the court may determine, subject to subsections (4) to (6) of this section or, where subsection (8) of this section applies, to that subsection, and

( b ) at the court ’ s discretion, to a fine of such amount as the court considers appropriate,

and the firearm or ammunition concerned shall be forfeited.

(3) The court, in imposing sentence on a person for an offence under this section, may, in particular, have regard to whether the person has a previous conviction for an offence under the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006 , the Offences against the State Acts 1939 to 1998 or the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005.

(4) Where a person (except a person under the age of 18 years) is convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall, in imposing sentence, specify a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years as the minimum term of imprisonment to be served by the person.

F64 [ (4A) The purpose of subsections (5) and (6) of this section is to provide that in view of the harm caused to society by the unlawful possession and use of firearms, a court, in imposing sentence on a person (except a person under the age of 18 years) for an offence under this section, shall specify as the minimum term of imprisonment to be served by the person a term of not less than 10 years, unless the court determines that by reason of exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence, or the person convicted of it, it would be unjust in all the circumstances to do so. ]

(5) Subsection (4) of this section does not apply where the court is satisfied that there are exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence, or the person convicted of it, which would make a sentence of imprisonment of not less than 10 years unjust in all the circumstances, and for this purpose the court may F65 [ , subject to subsection (6), ] have regard to any matters it considers appropriate, including —

( a ) whether the person pleaded guilty to the offence and, if so —

(i) the stage at which the intention to plead guilty was indicated,

(ii) the circumstances in which the indication was given,

and

( b ) whether the person materially assisted in the investigation of the offence.

(6) The court, in considering for the purposes of subsection (5) of this section whether a sentence of not less than 10 years imprisonment is unjust in all the circumstances, may have regard, in particular, to —

( a ) whether the person convicted of the offence has a previous conviction for an offence under the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006 , the Offences Against the State Acts 1939 to 1998 or the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, and

( b ) whether the public interest in preventing the unlawful possession or use of firearms would be served by the imposition of a lesser sentence.

(7) Subsections (4) to (6) of this section apply and have effect only in relation to a person convicted of a first offence under this section (other than a person who falls under subsection (8)( b ) of this section), and accordingly references in those first-mentioned subsections to an offence under this section are to be construed as references to a first such offence.

(8) Where a person (except a person under the age of 18 years) —

( a ) is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section,

( b ) is convicted of a first offence under this section and has been convicted of an offence under section 26, 27, 27A or 27B of the Firearms Act 1964 or section 12A of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990,

the court shall, in imposing sentence, specify a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years as the minimum term of imprisonment to be served by the person.

(9) Section 27C of the Firearms Act 1964 applies in relation to proceedings for an offence under this section and to any minimum term of imprisonment imposed under subsection (4) or (8) of this section in those proceedings. ]

Victor

veronymus wrote: »

Another case on point is that of Daniel Darrington who was sentenced to 8 years in Australia in 2016 for attempted murder. He fired three shots into the head of a corpse.

I wonder if a desecration of corpses charge would apply.

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

I wonder if a desecration of corpses charge would apply.

You couldn't convict someone with desecration of a corpse and attempted murder. Mutually exclusive surely?