1B - Murder

Question 1

What is the definition of murder?

Answer 1

the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought express or implied

Question 2

What is the actus reus of murder?

Answer 2

the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen’s peace

Question 3

What is the mens rea of murder?

Answer 3

malice aforethought

Question 4

The act of murder has to be ‘unlawful’, what are the lawful acts?

Answer 4

self-defense and an executioner

Question 5

What does ‘killing’ mean?

Answer 5

An act or omission (where there’s a duty to act)

Question 6

What does a person in being mean?

Answer 6

Means “a human being”.

Does not include a foetus.
Being “brain-dead” and on life support is open to the court’s interpretation.

Question 7

What does under the Queen’s peace mean?

Answer 7

Peacetime so it’s not a time of war

(The killing of an enemy in the course of war is not murder).

Question 8

Causation of murder

Answer 8

Murder is a result crime so the prosecution must prove that D’s act or omission caused the death of the V

Question 9

Factual causation

Answer 9

But for test

Question 10

Legal causation

Answer 10

• more than the minimal cause
• operating and substantial cause
• no intervening act

Question 11

Breaking the chain of causation

Answer 11

• bad medical treatment
• V’s own actions were reasonable
• thin skull rule

Question 12

What does malice aforethought mean?

Answer 12

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

Question 13

What is the foresight of consequences?

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

Transferred malice

Answer 14

The mens rea can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim

Question 15

What is homicide?

Answer 15

The unlawful killing of a human being.

Question 16

What is the jurisdiction of murder cover?

Answer 16

• Any murder committed by a British Citizen in England and Wales.
• Any murder committed by a British Citizen in any country.

Question 17

Are omissions enough to fulfil the AR of murder?

Answer 17

Yes. As held in R v Gibbins and Proctor

Question 18

What is the “thin skull rule”?

Answer 18

The defendant must take the victim as he finds him. (R v Blaue)

Question 19

What is legal causation?

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

What case was it held: “More than a slight or trifling link”.

Answer 20

R v Kimsey

Question 21

What case established the “but for test”?

Answer 21

R v Pagett (1983)

Question 22

What is the “but for test”?

Answer 22

The defendant can only be found guilty if the consequence would not have happened “but for” the defendant’s conduct.

Question 23

What are intervening acts which can break a chain of causation?

Answer 23

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.)

Question 24

What is the time limit for murder after an unlawful act occurred?

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

What is express malice aforethought?

Answer 25

The intention to kill

Question 26

What is implied malice aforethought?

Answer 26

The intention to cause GBH

Question 27

What is meant by GBH? - DPP v Smith (1961)

Answer 27

The House of Lords decided “GBH” means “really serious harm”.

Question 28

In what case was the defendant found guilty of murder even though they did not intend to kill.

Answer 28

R v Vickers (1957)

Question 29

Case for: The intention to injure a foetus

Answer 29

Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994)(1997)

Question 30

R v Mohan (1994)

Answer 30

• 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.

Question 31

R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

Nedrick (1986)

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Woollin (1998)

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Re A (2000)

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

What are the problems with proving intention?

Answer 36

• 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

Question 37

R v Woollin

Answer 37

• 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.

Question 38

R v Nedrick:

Answer 38

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?

Question 39

R v Moloney:

Answer 39

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.

Question 40

What is the general rule with transferred malice?

Answer 40

The defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim.

Question 41

Give examples of transferred malice

Answer 41

Gnango (2011)

Latimer (1886)

Pembliton (1874)

Question 42

What is the principle of coincidence of AR and MR for murder?

Answer 42

In order for an offence to take place, both the actus reus and mens rea must be present at the same time.

Question 43

Give examples of the principle of coincidence of AR and MR

Answer 43

Thabo Meli v R (1954)

Church (1965)

Question 44

For mens rea, the prosecution must prove…

Answer 44

• express malice aforethought, which is the intention to kill

or

• implied malice aforethought, which is the intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 45

For actus reus, the prosecution must prove….

Answer 45

• D killed
• a reasonable creature in being
• under the Queen’s Peace and
• the killing was unlawful.