Definition of Homicide Homicide is killing of a human being by a human being. The different categories of homicide are e.g.

Murder, Manslaughter and infanticide. Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide. Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways: 1) killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact. 2) conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill, is manslaughter ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and 3) conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm, that resulted in death, is manslaughter ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter"). Murder Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane); unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing); any reasonable creature (human being); in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936; under the Queen's Peace; with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). In R v Vickers Lord Goddard CJ: Murder is, of course, killing with malice aforethought, but ' malice 'aforethought' is a term of art. It has always been defined in English law as either an express intention to kill, as could be inferred when a person, having uttered threats against another, produced a lethal weapon and used it on a victim, or implied where, by a voluntary act, the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim, and the victim died as the result." Hence to establish murder victims act of actus reus and mens rea should be established. For the principal defendant, the intent for murder is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), nothing less. The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.

Manslaughter
The criminal act of manslaughter occurs when a person commits the actus reus of homicide but does not have the necessary mens rea to afford them liability for murder. So manslaughter basically covers all unlawful killings that are not murder. There are two categories of Manslaughter. The two categories are voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Facts of the case. Hector is furious due to his girlfriend left him for Vince. Due to this Hector and some his friend planned to frighten by way of revenge. They went Vince house and told him that they came to evict him from house for non payment of rent. Vince suddenly shut the door. At the time one of Hector's friend's foot was trapped in the door, breaking several small bones. Hector cannot contain his anger and punches at Vince stomach very hardly. They all went off, while Vince struggled from asthma and died.

Issues and discussion we need to discuss the first of all the actus reus of the crime. When we consider the actus reus the act of the crime is punch made by the Hector. When we go for the definition

Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person: of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane); unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing); any reasonable creature (human being); in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936; under the Queen's Peace; with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). The act of the victim could be considerd under the heading of GBH under the above definition. Further more the killing was unlawful. Vince was killed not for any justified reasons. Another important point we need to consider whether to conclude the act of Hector is murder or manslaughter is causation. The prosecution must always show a causal link between the act/omission and the death. So we need to decide that is there direct link between act (punch of Hector) and death of Vince. From the facts of the question we can see clearly that the death of Vince was occurred due to asthma resulted from the punch made by Hector. As the lord stated in R v HM Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams (1998) 1 All ER 344 the act should not be sole reason for death, but minimally it should be substantial cause of death. So there is casual link between the act of Hector and death. And as per the facts of the case concerns there is no such a fact which breaks the chain of causation.

Mens Rea.

When we look in to the mens Rea of the crime, we need to discuss the intention of the victim. The definition of the murder says about "intention to kill or cause GBH." Hence intention plays very important role in determining weather the crime is murder or manslaughter. To identify intention we had to analyse the action of the victim by two tests. We need to see whether the victim directly intended to kill or do GBH. If the intention is direct then no dought Hector is liable for murder. But if the hectors intention is not to kill or cause GBH, then intention shall be established after satisfaction of the two elements founded in R v Woolin. They are; would the reas, person see it as likely? Did the D see it as virtually certain? Both the question need to be satisfied to prove the intention. When we look in to the facts of the question Hector and his friends went to the Vince house not more than to frighten him with fake plan. This is the main intention of Hector. So can we say that Hector is not liable for murder but for manslaughter. Or else can we say that Hectors punch could be determined as GBH. As per the facts we cant say that Hectors punch could come under GBH. Because the punch made by Hector did not fulfill the necessary elements of GBH. As per the Moriarty v Brookes there is no wound exists where there is a break in the continuity of the skin. Hence, as per the definition of the murder, we cant consider the act of Hector could be liable for murder. Then need to discuss whether the Hector is liable for Manslaughter. Hence under the headings of Manslaughter, as per the facts of the case most appropriate headings which meets the act of Hector is Unlawful Act Manslaughter. The Unlawful Act Mandlughter is defined as where the killing is the result of:

the defendant's unlawful act (not omission); where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realize would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183; whether or not the defendant realised this.

As per the R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880 the act need not be directed against a person. The knowledge attributed to the sober and reasonable person is that which such a person would acquire as an observer of the whole course of the defendant's conduct throughout the unlawful act: R v Watson (1989) 2 All ER 865, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, R v Carey and others (2006) EWCA Crim 17.

In manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused's state of mind is relevant only to establish that the act was committed intentionally and that it was an unlawful act. Once these points are established the question whether the act was dangerous is to be judged not by the appellant's appreciation but that of the sober and reasonable man and it is impossible to impute the mistaken belief of the defendant that what he was doing was not dangerous: R v Ball 1989 CLR 730.

In relation to the reference to "loss of self-control" within section 54(1)(b) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 it does not matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden, but control must have been lost. The partial defence could still be put before a jury even where there has been delay between the trigger incident and the murder. However the judge will have to determine whether the time delay was sufficiently substantial to render the defence of loss of control untenable and therefore not sufficient to put before the jury.