Chapter 2 - Murder (cases) Flashcards
Name a case where a murder was the result of an omission?
R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
What were the facts in the case of R v Gibbins and Proctor?
A father and his mistress kept his 7 years old daughter separate from the other children and deliberately starved her to death and because they were under a duty of care to feed her and they omitted to do this they therefore had the intention or killing or causing serious harm and therefore they were found guilty of murder
In which case was it illustrated that a person can be guilty of murder even though they didn’t intend to kill?
R v Vickers (1957)
What were the facts in the case of R v Vickers?
The D broke into the cellar of a sweet shop and when the owner who was an old lady came into the cellar he hit her with his fists and kicked her in the head and she died, and even though the D intended to inflict GBH this is sufficient for implied malice aforethought and therefore the D was found guilty of murder
What case defined grievous bodily harm as ‘really serious harm’?
DPP v Smith (1961)
What case held that it was not possible for a defendant to have the mens rea to kill or seriously injure a foetus?
Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) (1997)
What are the 3 cases for foresight of consequences?
(1) R v Moloney (1985)
(2) R v Nedrick (1986)
(3) R v Woollin (1998)
What were the facts in the case of R v Moloney?
The D shot and killed his step-father in a drunken challenge to see who was quicker in the draw
What was held about intention in the case of R v Moloney?
it was held that foresight of consequences is only evidence from which intention may be inferred
What were the facts in the case of R v Nedrick?
The D poured paraffin through the letter box of a house in order to frighten the woman who lived there and a child died in the fire
What was held about intention in the case of R v Nedrick?
The jury must ask themselves 2 questions:
(1) how probably was the consequence which resulted from the defendant’s voluntary act?
(2) did the defendant foresee that consequence?
The C of A also said the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the D’s actions
What was held about intention in the case of R v Woollin?
The H of L in this case disapproved of the two questions in Nedrick but approved of the direction provided that the word ‘find’ was used instead of ‘infer’
THEREFORE, the jury should be directed that they are no 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
