Critically analyse the territorial and extraterritorial ambit of the Assignment

Critically analyse the territorial and extraterritorial ambit of the offence of murder under English Criminal Law - Assignment Example die of the wound or hurt etc. within a year and a day after the same† (Allen 309). It is imperative to note that under the English criminal system, murder is classified into the category of homicide and manslaughter. Legally, homicide is a more serious offence in comparison to manslaughter. In order for a person to be charged with homicide or manslaughter, the elements of the definition of murder must be proved to be true. Actus Reus Under the English Law, the Actus Reus for murder must be present before one can be convicted for the offence of murder. One aspect of Actus Reus is that act of murder must be unlawful. This implies that act should not have any legal basis to justify its occurrence. Under the English criminal system, the law recognizes some circumstances under which murder can be justified. For instance, killing someone in self defense can be admissible in a court as a legally permissible reason for murder. The justification for killing also depends on the circumsta nces under which the deceased was killed and the role of the accused in the murder (Chalmers & Fiona 219). In essence, killing under English law may include accelerating another person’s death due to an act or an omission. ... This means that any killing that occurs under all circumstances except during war are is classified as an offence of murder. Enemy killing is not justified by law unless it occurs during a war or events thereof (David 453). English Law is precise in regards to the concept of â€Å"Queen’s peace† by expressly stating that all situations except during war are classified as â€Å"Queen’s peace†. Even formally identified foreign enemies cannot be lawfully killed under the pretext that they are outside the scope of the Queen’s peace. It is imperative to that this principle applies both within and outside the territories of the English criminal law. The specific act or omission that results in the murder of a person must have a substantial contribution as cause of death for an accused person to be convicted for the offence of murder. The act or omission and the death must be linked in order for a conviction to be upheld. In essence, the prosecution has th e burden of proving that the accused did more than minimally or negligibly contribute to the death. The contribution of the accused person to the death must be considered substantial in the context of the law (Hirst 229). In this regard, even if the action or omission just accelerated the death, the accused is legally liable for the death. For instance, in R v Dyson (1908), it was held that the defendant was liable for the offence of murder even though the defendant had only hastened death. In order to break the causation chain, it is upon the defendant to prove that the intervening act was the main cause of the death (Cryer 152). This may occur in instances whereby a person’s actions or inactions are part of a chain of actions that can be attributed to the death. It is only an unforeseeable or unexpected action