Particular Chapter of the Criminal Law
8 Pages2428 Words88 Views
Added on 2020-03-04
Particular Chapter of the Criminal Law
Added on 2020-03-04
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: HOMICIDERobert Farquhanson CaseName of the student:Name of the university:Author note
1HOMICIDEThe case is based on a particular chapter of the criminal law. Homicide is a reflection ofcriminal mentality that causes death of another. The nature of the offence is depending on theperspective of death (Ellis & McGovern, 2016). There are certain elements of the criminal act.However, one of them attracts the provision of this case. The element is if any person held liable forthe death of another by way of accident where there is an intention exists, that will be under theprovision of the homicide act (Finlay & Kirchengast, 2015). These types of offences are cognizance innature. They are directly harming the society. In the case of Robert Farquharson, a similar kind ofstory has been depicted that rock the Australian society as well as the legislation of Australia. it is astory of a father who was alleged to kill his three sons brutally and got punished by the Federal Courtof Australia. The murder was took place in the year 2005 just after the celebration of Father’s Day.The most shocking part of the case was that he loved his children and had celebrated the ceremonyactively. However, still there is a question exists whether Robert is the actual murderer or not (Amato,2017).The case of Robert Farquharson had opened a new era in the area of homicide. There arecertain essentials regarding the case that can be categorised as follows:The matter of the said case is quite entangled in nature. There are certain evidences that werewent against Robert. There are some evidences, on the other hand that were supported the activity ortestimony of Robert and made a confusion regarding the same. the first problem is there is no directevidence in this case (Horan & Goodman-Delahunty, 2014). All the evidences are based on thetestimonies of the accused and the witnesses. Even, there is no eyewitness here. The prime witness inthis case was Greg King. During the cross examination, he told to the court that he heard from Robertby saying to made his wife suffer. The relevant fact regarding this matter was that Robert and his wiferesided separately. It was also stated that Robert was liable for the separation to some extent. Thereare certain others witnesses who also delivered their contentions against Robert (Joseph, 2016). The children were killed by a fatal accident that was met by Robert while returning to home.The car was rammed a fence and fell in a gutter and the car was sink. The children did not found the
2HOMICIDEway to free exit and succumbed to death. The suspicion raised when Robert somehow made itpossible to remain himself out of the car (Taylor, 2015). When the police interrogated him, he toldthat he has suffering from special kinds of bronchiole disease and he got senseless for certain moment.However, there was a question cropped up regarding the issue that how he managed to free himselffrom the car belt and how he freed himself during the unconscious condition. Certain evidences are found when the police examined the car. There was no mark that canprove the fact that his car was rammed with the fence. Another point was that the speed limit of thecar was not that fast. During that speed, how a car can be rammed with the fence was cropped up. There were no direct evidence regarding the fact that whether Robert had any hidden revengefor her wife or not (Kenny, 2013). There were certain persons who testified the fact that Robert wassomehow disturbed for the separation. It was also contended by his wife Cindy Gambino that Robertwanted to get back her again in his life and remained disturbed for the fact. However, there was nohints in the statement of his wife regarding the killing mentality of Robert. Even when the Courtdelivered its judgment against Robert, she did not believe the fact that Robert can kill his sons, as hewas a loving father. The decision made the whole nation silent and protestation made for Robert. Many persons took the decision of the court negatively. There were certain reasons behind thefact that Robert is innocent (Kleinhauz, Horowitz & Tobin, 2013). Certain flaws are made in theprocess of investigation. The testimonies of Greg King were not at all trustworthy as he gave differenttestimony before the court and before the police. There were certain loopholes arise in this case. Theinvestigation process also hold certain laxity. The decisions of the court were ex parte in nature. Therewere certain facts that proved that the police tried to make Robert responsible for the murder andpassed their buck in this way. Police officers were showed certain carelessness regarding the examination of the car of theaccused. There were no proper investigation had been made and the road was not even been examinedby the forensic team in an appropriate manner (Little, 2015). As per the investigation officer, Robertwas intentionally met the accident and put the car in the gutter and the consequence was detrimental
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
The Case of R v Arthur Freemanlg...
|8
|1956
|92
VICTIMOLOGY Serial killinglg...
|5
|879
|156
Analysis of the Case Assignment 2022lg...
|6
|1605
|16
The Judgment of the Supreme Court Case United States JAMES K. KAHLERlg...
|4
|664
|28