2020-Fatal Offences Flashcards
What is murder
Unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the queens peace with malice aforethought express or implied
What is the actus reus of murder
Killing
Reasonable creature in being
Under Queen’s peace
Unlawful
What is the men’s rea for murder
Expression intention to kill (direct/oblique)
Implied intention to cause GBH
What is considered in the killing aspect of AR
Factual and legal causation
Factual causation is
But for test
What is legal causation
Multiple causes? if so was it substantial ?
Thin skull rule?
Unbroken chain
Vs own act
Unpredictable event
Third party act
Reasonable creature in being means what
Human in being
What isn’t classed as a reasonable creature in being
A foetus
Is a brain dead person a reasonable creature in being
Yes
What does under the queen’s peace mean
The country is not at war
What are the exceptions making something lawful
Self defence
Defence of another
Prevent crime
What is express intention to kill
Direct- wishes for direct consequence
Oblique- main aim was something but D saw death as virtually certain
Implied intention to cause GBH a means …
Intention to cause serious harm to victim
R v gibbins and proctor
Father and stepmother fails to feed child and the child dies
Omission
R v vickers
d breaks into shop where he knows v (owner is deaf) she sees him so he beats her up and she dies
Intent to commit GBH enough for murder
R v moloney
No intention to shoot father
N v Nedrick
Paraffin through letter box kills family
1) how probable that death would occur of Ds act
2) did D foresee consequences
R v woolin
Changes two questions of nedrick to death is a virtual certainity
Problems with murder
Developed by cases Conviction even though no intent to kill No defence for excessive self defence Duress not available No variation in mandatory life sentence
What was the law commissions proposals for reform
Introduce a first degree and second degree murder
What did the government do to change
Ignored idea of two different offence however introduced reform that there should be defence for excessive force in self defence
What is voluntary manslaughter
Actus Reus and means Rea but MR due to LOC or DR
What is in diminished responsibility
Arose from recognised medical condition
Substantially impaired
Provides explanation for an act
R v Byrne
Sexual psychopath didn’t realise his conduct was wrong
What conditions were added to medical conditions in the CJA 2009
Depression Dementia PTSD Schizophrenia Adjustment disorder
What are the three aspects of substantially impaired
Understood nature of conduct
Ability to form a rational judgement
Ability to exercise self control
R v golds
Man has abnormality of mental functioning however he wasn’t substantially impaired- sc held murder conviction
What is the last aspect of DR
Explains Ds act
Dr and intoxication- what are the three possibilities to consider
1) Intoxication at the time and they wish to use Dr as a defence
2) D was intoxicated and has recognised medical condition
3) Intoxication due to addiction
What happens if D was intoxicated and wish to use DR as a defence
Intoxication alone isn’t recognised as a condition. Requires abnormality of mental functioning
What happens if someone is intoxicated and has a recognised medical condition
The abnormality must have occurred regardless of drink or drugs- R v Deutschmann
What happens if someone is intoxicated due to addiction
ADS someone can’t control that so they will successfully get voluntary manslaughter - r v wood
what was reform of diminished responsibility suggested in
Murder manslaughter and infanticide- law commission report 2006
what are the two main issues of DR
burden of proof is on D to prove his illness
developmental immaturity can’t be used even though it can affect those under 18
what are the three aspects to LOC
D must have lost self control
there must be a qualifying trigger
person of same age and sex must have acted in the same way
what are the main points on loss of self control
it doesn’t need to be sudden however when premeditated it less likely to be accepted. anger not taken into consideration
R v jewell
man with shotgun kills man, found with items like survival kit suggests it wasn’t a loss of control
what are the two qualifying triggers in LOC
fear of serious violence
things said or done which constituted circumstances of n extremely grave character which caused D to think he would be seriously wronged
what does r v ward show
the violence feared can be someone to else
what does r v Dawes show
sexual infidelity and violence you have caused is not a qualifying trigger
what does r v zebedee show
must be a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
what does r v clinton show
sexual infidelity can be included when included with other matters
what other circumstances can be taken into account
depression, epilepsy or history of sexual abuse
what is not taken into account
voluntary intoxication
what does Jury consider in loc
Whether a normal person would have acted the same
what is the effect of LOC
reduces to manslaughter
what are the problems with loc
Does not cover situations where a woman in abusive situation kills through anger fear and frustration
no loger covers sexual infidelity
fear of serious violence is not enough
what is the difference between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary
voluntary- intention to kill or cause GBH
involuntary- no intention
what are the ways someone can commit IV manslaughter
UdAM - unlawful act manslaughter
gross negligence manslaughter
what are the elements of UDAM
complete an unlawful act
must be dangerous on an objective test
must cause death
mr for unlawful act
what is not enough for a unlawful act
a civil wrongdoing
what does r v lamb show
no unlawful act of shooting a gun
what cannot their be in udam
omission as shown by R v Lowe
what typically is UDAM
non fatals or dangerous acts. however, arson, criminal damage and burglary can also be covered
what is the test for something being dangerous
it must be objective, would a sober person realise the risk of some harm
which case shows objectivity in UdAM
r v church
what does the harm need to be in Udam
only some harm not serious harm
which case shows that only some harm is needed
Larkin
what case shows that harm need not be specific in UdAM
r v J M and S M
can an act against a property be counted as Uam
yes as shown by R V Goodfellow when he set fire to his flat
what is not enough for Udam + two case examples
fear alone is not enough on its own ( r v Dawson) however if D knows of v being frail then it can be used ( R v Watson)
when is Burglary accepted for UdAM
when it is done in a dangerous way like in r v Burstow Dunn and Delay
what are the rules of causation for UdAM
must be physical and legal cause
Vs self injection of a drug breaks chain of causation
what does R v Kennedy / R v Dalby show
supplying a drug is not enough for unlawful act manslaughter
what does DPP V Newbury and Jones show
only need mens rea for unlawful act. not required to foresee any harm.
what are the 4 aspects of Gross negligence manslaughter
Duty of care
breach of duty
Gross
risk of death
what are the three aspects of duty of care
proximity of relationship
reasonable foreseeability of harm
fair just and reasonable
what did adomako show
civil concept of negligence still applies
what did r v Singh show
landlords can be held accountable for faulty gas and the death of his tenants
what does r v Litchfield show
ship owner can own a duty of care to the people on his ship
what did R V Wacker show
that for all victims (the illegal immigrants in this case) were a part of the illegal act it does not matter to ds liability
how was Stone and Dobinson unfair
they had a duty to call for help because it was Stone’s sister, even though they were also ill they had a duty to get help
what must the breach of duty do
there must be a factual and legal cause of the death
what did the judge state in Adomako relating to gross negligence
it is up to the Jury to decide whether the negligence was “gross”
what did R v Misra and Srivastava show
they tried to claim that elements of the law were unclear so that it breached elements of Article 7 of the ECHR. failed as Adomako had already explained this.
Evaluation of UdAM
wide range of conduct - blameworthiness varies
death was an unexpected result- did not expect other man to die due to his actions
objective test means that if D did not realise danger he is still guilty.
Reform of UdAM
set out in 2006 report that UdAM should be abolished
should be three tier system
it would allow harsher sentences for more mens rea - second degree murder
criminal act would mean that it would be a subjective test to whether they realise they could be convicted
Evaluate GNM
circular test- not clear and confusing “was it criminal”
inconsistent verdicts- jury decides whether it is gross enough to be criminal
uses civil test for whether someone has been negligent
hard to test what a good enough risk of death is.
Reform of GNM
2006 law reform report
only guilty when: causes death, obvious to person in that position, appreciated risk at time, falls below circumstances
prosecution would prove the risk was appreciated
subjective recklessness manslaughter- no intent.
