1B - Murder Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the definition of murder?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the actus reus of murder?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the mens rea of murder?

A

malice aforethought,
Express - Intention to kill
or
implied - Intention to cause GBH
Can be guilty even if no intention to kill - R v Vickers, Cunningham

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

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

A

self-defense and an executioner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does ‘killing’ mean?

A

An act or omission (where there’s a duty to act)
Omission - R v Gibbons and Proctor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does a person in being mean?

A
  • Foetus - AG Ref No.3 of 1994 - 1997
  • what if they are being kept alive by life support - R v Malcherek and Steel
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does under the Queen’s peace mean?

A

Peacetime so it’s not a time of war

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Causation of murder

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Factual causation

A

But for test. R v White, R v Pagett

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Legal causation

A
  • More than the minimal cause - R v Kimsey
  • Operating and substantial cause - R v Smith
  • No intervening act
  • Consider the think skull rule - R v Blaue
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Breaking the chain of causation

A

Chain of causation must not be broken
Can be broken by:
-Act of a third party, R v Jordan
-Victims own act, R v Roberts
-natural but inpredivatble event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Transferred malice

A

The mens rea can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim. R v Mitchell

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the contemporaneity rule?

A
  • general principle that actus reus and mens rea must occur at the same time.
  • Continuing act - R v Fagan
  • Series of acts - R v Thabo Meli
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly