1B - Murder Flashcards
What is the definition of murder?
the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought express or implied
What is the actus reus of murder?
the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen’s peace
What is the mens rea of murder?
malice aforethought
The act of murder has to be ‘unlawful’, what are the lawful acts?
self-defense and an executioner
What does ‘killing’ mean?
An act or omission (where there’s a duty to act)
What does a person in being mean?
Means “a human being”.
Does not include a foetus.
Being “brain-dead” and on life support is open to the court’s interpretation.
What does under the Queen’s peace mean?
Peacetime so it’s not a time of war
(The killing of an enemy in the course of war is not murder).
Causation of murder
Murder is a result crime so the prosecution must prove that D’s act or omission caused the death of the V
Factual causation
But for test
Legal causation
- more than the minimal cause
- operating and substantial cause
- no intervening act
Breaking the chain of causation
- bad medical treatment
- V’s own actions were reasonable
- thin skull rule
What does malice aforethought mean?
intention to kill or cause GBH
- express - intention to kill
- implied - intention to cause GBH
- no requirement for malice or pre-planning
- can be guilty of murder even if they did not intend to kill
What is the foresight of consequences?
- the D may have intended another result (oblique intention)
Intention to kill or cause GBH isn’t necessary unless the jury feels that death or serious injury was ‘virtually certain’ as a result of the D’s actions and D realised this
Transferred malice
The mens rea can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim
What is homicide?
The unlawful killing of a human being.
What is the jurisdiction of murder cover?
- Any murder committed by a British Citizen in England and Wales.
- Any murder committed by a British Citizen in any country.
Are omissions enough to fulfil the AR of murder?
Yes. As held in R v Gibbins and Proctor
What is the “thin skull rule”?
The defendant must take the victim as he finds him. (R v Blaue)
What is legal causation?
The defendant can only be found guilty if their conduct was more than a “minimal” cause of the consequence. But the defendant’s conduct need not be a substantial cause.
What case was it held: “More than a slight or trifling link”.
R v Kimsey
What case established the “but for test”?
R v Pagett (1983)
What is the “but for test”?
The defendant can only be found guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for” the defendant’s conduct.
What are intervening acts which can break a chain of causation?
An act of a third party
The victim’s own act
A natural but unpredictable event
(Intervening act must be sufficiently independent of the defendant’s conduct and sufficiently serious.)
What is the time limit for murder after an unlawful act occurred?
There is no time limit on when a death may occur after an unlawful act, but consent is needed by the Attorney-General if this is over 3 years after the act.
What is express malice aforethought?
The intention to kill
What is implied malice aforethought?
The intention to cause GBH
What is meant by GBH? - DPP v Smith (1961)
The House of Lords decided “GBH” means “really serious harm”.
In what case was the defendant found guilty of murder even though they did not intend to kill.
R v Vickers (1957)
Case for: The intention to injure a foetus
Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994)(1997)
R v Mohan (1994)
- The defendant refused to stop when a policeman signalled for him to do so.
- Instead, he drove into the officer.
- This shows a direct intention to scare/injure the police officer.
R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)
FACTS:
- Miner dropped lumps of concrete onto road, killing taxi driver.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- The greater the probability of a consequence…
- the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and therefore…
- the greater the probability is that that consequence was also intended.
Nedrick (1986)
FACTS:
- Poured paraffin through letter box, causing fire in the house in which a child died
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- Jury not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that the defendant appreciated this
Woollin (1998)
FACTS:
- Threw baby at pram, causing its death.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- The direction in Nedrick should not use the word ‘infer’. Instead, the jury should be told it is entitled to find intention
Re A (2000)
FACTS:
- Doctors wanted to operate on conjoined twins but knew this would cause one of them to die.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- Court thought that Woollin made it law that foresight of consequences is intention
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
FACTS:
- Threw the victim into river where he drowned.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- Woollin meant that foresight of consequences is not intention. It is a rule of evidence.
If a jury decides that the defendant foresaw the virtual certainty of death or serious injury, then it is entitled to find intention but it does not have to do so.
What are the problems with proving intention?
- Where the defendant’s main aim was different from causing the death/serious injury, where death was the end result. = Oblique intent
- The defendant does not have the mens rea for murder unless they foresaw that he would also cause death or serious injury. = Foresight of consequence
R v Woollin
- The jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the D’s actions, and
- The defendant appreciated that such was the case.
R v Nedrick:
The Court of Appeal: Juries ask themselves two questions:
1) How probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendant’s voluntary act?
2) Did the defendant foresee that consequence?
R v Moloney:
The defendant shot and killed his stepfather in a drunken challenge to see who was quicker on the draw.
It was held that foresight of consequences is only evidence from which intention may be inferred.
What is the general rule with transferred malice?
The defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim.
Give examples of transferred malice
Gnango (2011)
Latimer (1886)
Pembliton (1874)
What is the principle of coincidence of AR and MR for murder?
In order for an offence to take place, both the actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time.
Give examples of the principle of coincidence of AR and MR
Thabo Meli v R (1954)
Church (1965)
For mens rea, the prosecution must prove…
- express malice aforethought, which is the intention to kill
or
- implied malice aforethought, which is the intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
For actus reus, the prosecution must prove….
- D killed
- a reasonable creature in being
- under the Queen’s Peace and
- the killing was unlawful.
