User talk:Ben stephenson

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 21:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Barry George
Hi. As a former law student myself, I take your point about motive; however, don't you think that its existence, had it been proved, would have been probative in the original trial? Certainly would have been made part of the circumstantial evidence, which indicates to me that its absence might also be weakly persuasive for the defence. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware motive is only relevant at the sentencing stage. At no point prior to this can motive be used to consider guilt. Of course, it can be used by the prosecution for a more compelling case, but this is merely superficial, as the judge will be prohibited from directing the jury to consider the defendant's motive. The judge can, however, consider motive at the sentencing stage. This is an extremely settled area of law, put simply, if the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the appropriate actus reus and mens rea of the offence and subsequently has no defence, he will be found guilty of murder. I understand your point about motive, but it would in my opinion lead to great uncertainty within the law.


 * Of course I only actually practised law for seven years and sat through maybe several thousand criminal trials in that time so maybe I'm not qualified to comment. My point was that motive is not necessary to prove guilt but may be probative of guilt if it can be shown to exist, but more use to the defence in cases like Barry George's if it does not. I can't imagine counsel not hammering the point home to a jury. The judge will give the issue due weight in his directions. Unless you can cite authority? -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opening sentence there is unnecessary, and is plain arrogant. Of course, I am a 2nd year student who has not yet represented defendants in court, which it would appear is the main reason for the clash of opinion. I do however direct you to the case of R v Moloney [1985], here the court stated that "intention is something quite different from motive or desire". In other words it is possible to intend a consequence without wanting it to happen. I also refer you to the case of R v Hales [2005], as Keene LJ explained that even though it was not the defendant's motive to kill, he was prepared to kill in order to escape, and therefore the intention to kill was found.Ben stephenson 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the impression of arrogance; it was unintended. However, this disagreement arises because you are arguing about the essential elements of criminal responsibility, and I am arguing about what evidence may be evidentially usable to persuade a jury of them. I found fairly early on that knowing the cases & statutes is all very well, but there is also a practical element involved in prosecuting or defending which is not addressed by the academic side of studying law. My original point was that if the prosecution in the George case had evidence of motive, such as a diary stating George's intentions (in the loosest sense), you bet they would have used it. Likewise, the defence were quite at liberty to point out to the jury that no motive on George's part had been shown, let alone the weakness of the other evidence. It was quite clear from the forensic examination of the wound that the perpetrator intended to kill because there is no other plausible interpretation of its characteristics, and intention was thus never an issue in the case. I propose we leave it at that. Best of luck with your career. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I see, well the point you have made regarding the practical element does indeed give me a more knowledgeable insight in to your overall argument, which now makes more sense. Therefore it is entirely right that the prosecution or defence would use evidence (or lack of evidence) of motive to help garner momentum in their efforts. You are right about the academic side of law, I agree that a substantial amount of what I learn now will be fairly superficial in realistic scenarios, add to the fact that I haven't yet studied evidence/criminology, which looks more into characteristics, as these are only 3rd year modules. You have however given me a sound insight into the practicalities of a courtroom v the substantive law, which I am very grateful for indeed. Thank you for your kind wishes. Did you solely practice criminal law or were you involved in any other disciplines? -- Ben stephenson 15:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mostly criminal but maintained interest in other areas. Here I have written on criminal insanity, M'Naghten Rules and Theft, and am currently looking to update & clarify Fraud Act 2006. You should join the Law Project, it needs a lot of work as there are many leading cases without articles and it tends to be biased towards U.S. law. I find it educational (since I haven't kept up with recent law as much as I'd have liked to), and you might find it useful. Meanwhile I see the jury is out in the Castree case. That will be interesting since there is some opinion (in uk.legal anyway) that this was actually a Yorkshire Ripper killing, which I strongly doubt. Keep in touch, I'm sure we'll meet in the Barry George article. My Master's and research is in criminology, and it can be quite dry- email me if you have any queries. Regards.-- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

R v Steane
Hi Ben, I see you've joined the Law Project. Good on yer. Meanwhile, you might want to take a look at this case which has been missing from the project for a while, especially in view of our recent discussions. It's a mess of a case & I reckon Goddard was pissed when he wrote his judgement. Let me have any comments. Cheers. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Could you please explain the purpose of the Law Project; I am unsure as to what needs to be done?! I am very interested in making suggestions. As you can see, there are 7 disciplines that I am capable of developing further, so if there are any other particular areas (I'd imagine equity is one of those) that needs particular development let me know! Ben stephenson 01:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose is generally to tidy up & add to articles dealing with legal matters. There is a to-do list at the top of the Project page but, looking at it, it's largely American. I mean to go through the cases on WP sometime to see if there are any obvious missing UK leading cases and maybe add them. One of the articles that needs looking at is Equity (law). The introduction is way too long, you'd think that equitable doctrines ceased to be important in the UK with the Judicature Acts, and that this was wholly now an American topic. No mention either of principles such as "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" or "equity will not assist a volunteer". Worth a look for you. Let me know how you get on. Regards, -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed; the maxim of "equity will not perfect an imperfect gift"; there are exceptions to this which I feel are quite important in regard of fixed/discretionary trusts. There is a very important case regarding constructive manslaughter, which I presume you have looked at (R v Kennedy [2007]), and there is also an interesting case regarding subjective recklessness POST R v G and another [2004], which is Crown Prosecution Service v Booth [2006]; if you have access to westlaw or lexis nexis full case reports are available there. Ben stephenson 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Gah! Do you students never sleep? Neither did I. I'll look at those recent cases tomorrow, but meanwhile one of the principles of Wikipedia is be bold!. If you think the Equity article can be improved, go ahead and do it. In fact, subject to looking at the articles already linked from it, I think there may be case for a separate article on "Maxims/Tenets/Principles of Equity" which would be different from Equitable Remedies. I'll pencil that in, too. It's a while since I did any serious work on the Law project so it'll be a change of scene for me. I enjoyed writing Steane; I like to include the human angle but failed to find his first name, or indeed, what he did after this case. I also tried to write the Commentary section without going too far but it's not a very well analysed case, and quite rightly so. It is, as they say, "a shed". -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; it appears to be one of those anomaly cases which are unlikely to ever happen again. I have began updating involuntary manslaughter, and added a subsection I was very surprised to see had been missed out; that of drug suppliers and the imposition of liability. Of course I will not be able to devote that much time to the Law Project as I have the small worry of a degree to deal with but I shall in my spare time endeavour to develop certain areas the best I can. Equity is something I will look at with great interest, the introduction is a bit scruffy. Ben stephenson 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no rush, it seems there are very few active project members anyhow. Leave a message on my talk page if you come across any problems. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had an initial look over Manslaughter in English law. The section about subjective whatnot seems to belong in an article about jurisprudence and is too detailed for this article, so I've taken it out. I've added proper case citations and propose a split between Voluntary & Involuntary M/S. The former is easily dealt with because it's just a case of linking to provocation, diminished responsibility]] and having a footnote for suicide pacts. The latter is where the fun begins but I'm not going to look at it tonight, it's too intellectual. The "under construction" tag doesn't stop you adding your own stuff, and feel free to improve mine. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)