Criminal Law - Homicide Offences (4) Flashcards
What is homicide?
Homicide: Homicide is unlawful killing, and covers murder and both types of manslaughter.
Actus Reus
Actus Reus: The unlawful causation of the death of another human being.
(1) Unlawful: Not justified in law. ‘Lawful’ killing usually means self-defence.
(2) Human Being: A person alive independently of the mother’s womb (R v Poulton).
Unborn: The unborn are incapable of being killed. Must be fully delivered. However, manslaughter may be possible if a baby is born and then dies for wounds inflicted in the womb.
Conjoined Twins: Conjoined twins are two human beings, and one or both may be killed (Re A Children).
(3) Causation: The usual rules of causation apply.
(4) Death: Death means the irreversible death of the brainstem (R v Malcherek).
Effect: This means one will be capable of death even if technically they died after machine off.
What is murder?
Murder: The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought (Coke).
(1) Actus Reus: See above.
King’s Peace: Killing a combatant in war is not murder.
Omissions: Omissions will amount to murder if there is a duty of care to the victim.
(2) Mens Rea: Malice aforethought, meaning intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm (R v Inglis). This includes mercy killings.
What is the partial defence of diminished responsibility?
Diminished Responsibility: A partial defence to murder, which must be proved by the defendant on balance (s52 CJA). AR and MR of murder must be made out.
(1) Abnormality of Mental Functioning: The defendant suffered from abnormal processes of the mind.
(2) Medical Recognition: The abnormalities were caused by a medical condition.
Condition: Condition need not be psychological - any condition which then impairs the mind is ok.
(3) Substantial Impairment: The condition must have substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to understand their nature, or form rational judgment, or exercise self control.
Substantial: This is ‘important or weighty’ (R v Golds).
(4) Explained Role: The impairment must have played a role in the homicide, though need not be the sole cause, and can be combined with intoxication (R v Dietschmann).
Exception: If the murder was premeditated, abnormality is irrelevant.
What is the partial defence of loss of control?
Loss of Control
Loss of Control: A partial defence to murder, need merely be raised by the defendant, but disproved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt (ss54-55 CJA). AR and MR of murder must be made out.
(1) Loss of Control: The defendant’s act or omission resulted from a loss of control. This cannot be revenge.
(2) Qualifying Trigger: The loss of control had an objective qualifying trigger, though need not have been immediately prior to the killing. Either (or both):
Fear Trigger: The defendant feared serious violence from the victim towards themselves or another identified person.
Anger Trigger: The victim said or did things of extremely grave consequence which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Exception: Sexual infidelity or provocation will not suffice, but will not rule out the defence if there are other qualifying factors.
(3) Same Age: A hypothetical person of the defendant’s age and sex might have reacted the same way.
(4) In Practice: Usually relied upon by battered women.
What is Unlawful Act/Constructive Manslaughter?
Unlawful Act Manslaughter: Defendant committed an unlawful act, which was objectively dangerous and caused death of another human being.
(1) Unlawful Act: Defendant committed an offence of intention or recklessness (R v Lamb).
Act: Must be an act, not an omission (R v Lowe).
(2) Objectively Dangerous: The reasonable bystander must perceive the act as carrying some risk of harm, need not be serious (R v Ball; R v Church). This is based on the facts of the event, not merely the offence.
Supplying Drugs: Supplying drugs which kills someone is not unlawful act manslaughter, as there is free will (R v Kennedy).
(3) Causation: Usual test of causation.
(4) Mens Rea: Defendant had the mens rea of the relevant ‘unlawful act’.
What is Gross Negligence Manslaughter?
Gross Negligence Manslaughter: Defendant caused death of another by act or omission which was grossly negligent.
(1) Duty of Care: Defendant owed the victim a legal duty of care (R v Willoughby).
(2) Breach of Duty: Defendant fell below the reasonable standard of the person in that position (Bolam).
Omission: Omissions will only constitute breach if there was a positive duty to act, such as a Doctor during surgery (R v Khan; R v Evans).
(3) Causation: Defendant’s act caused death, causation usual rules.
Foreseeability: The reasonably prudent person must foresee death as a serious and obvious risk of that act or omission, even if the defendant does not (R v Singh; R v Rose).
(4) Gross Negligence: Once negligence is established, the jury decides whether it is gross, meaning extreme and severe enough to warrant criminal liability (R v Adomako).
Corporate Manslaughter
Corporate Manslaughter: For a corporation to commit manslaughter, it must be determined that the corporation had a controlling mind whose actions and mental state represented the corporation as a whole (identification doctrine).
