header-logo header-logo

Murder law consultation launched

03 January 2008
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Legal Services

The next step in the first comprehensive review of murder law for 50 years has been announced by the Ministry of Justice.

The government is seeking views on recommendations put forward by the Law Commission following the publication of its report, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide. It will initially look at the commission’s proposals for: reformed partial defences to murder of provocation and diminished responsibility; reformed offences of complicity in relation to homicide; and improved procedures for dealing with infanticide.

Specialists and key stakeholders from within and outside the criminal justice system are being asked for their views on the commission’s recommendations over several months. If changes to the law are considered necessary, draft clauses will be published for consultation in the summer, the government says. Joy Merriam, chairman of the Criminal Lawyer Solicitors’ Association (CLSA), says: “The CLSA has been keenly anticipating the opportunity for there to be a detailed review of the law of homicide. However, the association is still in the early stages of considering its response.

“We consider that justice is best served by ensuring that the facts are fully rehearsed before the court including all appropriate defences and the court in turn is able to have some flexibility in terms of sentence.”

Justice Minister Maria Eagle says: “Murder is the most serious crime and it is essential that the law reflects this. The government remains committed to retaining the mandatory life sentence and the sentencing principles for murder set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.”

This stage of the review, Eagle says, will look at specific aspects of the operation of the law of murder to ensure that it protects the public and provides appropriate levels of punishment for those found guilty. “

The law needs to be clear and fair so that people have confidence in the criminal justice system. We want to have an open and inclusive debate on the issues before we bring forward firm proposals on how the law should be reformed,” she adds.

Issue: 7302 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

Francis Ho, Charles Russell Speechlys partner, was recently appointed chair of the Construction Law Committee of the City of London Law Society. He discusses the challenges of learning to lead, the importance of professional ethics, and the power of the written word, withNLJ

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
back-to-top-scroll