murchr wrote:mkenyan wrote:murchr wrote:mkenyan wrote:murchr wrote:mkenyan wrote:Obi 1 Kanobi wrote:Is a murder charge really sustainable for Jacque Maribe. Wouldn't a lesser charge be easier to prove, I hope the DPP has sufficient proof although I will be very surprised if he does, as I would be shocked if the lady could have read news of the death of Monica with a straight face if she was involved.
doesn't really matter. she can be charged with murder and after the hearing the judge convicts for a lesser offence of accessory. disregard those theories of 'if she is not convicted of murder she gets away with it.' same way jowi could be charged with murder and gets convicted of manslaughter instead - remember the dola guy?
Dola got Manslaughter because his lawyer proved that he did not plan to kill his wife (malice aforethought; no intent), the prosecutor was not able to show any prove of a plan or intent to kill. He happened to act (snap) after a disagreement. He presented himself to police
Jowi here stole someone's ID and used it to gain entry into her premise (that may be used to show intent to kill)
my point is he was charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter. the court did not acquit him coz murder wasn't proven but instead downgraded it to manslaughter. and my comment was about jackie maribe btw.
Ref to post 343
(d) an intention by the act or omission to facilitate the flight or escape from custody of any person who has committed or attempted to commit a felony
section 206 (d) provides for one of the circumstances that constitute malice aforethought and not murder. malice aforethought is just another prerequisite of murder and not the only one. it does not oust mens rea and actus reus.
Yes and malice aforethought is the prerequisite to murder. So she will need to refutes the fact she did not facilitate the flight someone who had committed a felony.
you seem not to be getting it. malice aforethought need to be accompanied by the actual killing (actus reus). it is in a way a higher standard of proof for mens rea.
that prove of malice aforethought you keep on repeating cannot lead to a conviction for murder by itself without one actually killing someone.
let me give you a clear example of the same - if in facilitating the flight of someone who has committed a felony maribe killed someone, then even if she did not intend to kill, malice aforethought shall be inferred and her act of killing (done to facilitate the flight of say jowie) shall constitute murder.
now on the other hand you seem to be saying that by facilitating the flight of someone who has committed a felony she had a malice aforethought in respect of a murder which had already been committed. that is a wrong interpretation of that provision.