Criminal Law - Murder Flashcards
AG Jersey v Holley
Facts: Following an argument, a man hacked his ex-partner to death with an ax.
Principle: The hypothetical reasonable man will have a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint. individual personality train (such as bad temper) are irrelevant for the purpose of s 54(1)(c) Coroners and Justice Act
DPP v Camplin
Facts:A 15 year old killed a man who had raped him by hitting him with a pan. The jury were initially directed to disregard his age when considering whether a reasonable person would have reacted as he did
Principle: The age of the individual seeking to rely on the defense of loss of control should be considered
DPP v Smith
Facts: The defendant shook a policeman (who was trying to prevent him escaping) off his car by swerving. The policeman fell, at speed and was killed
Principle: GBH is defined in the alternative as really serious harm
R v Ahluwalia
Facts: A women who had been beaten and abused throughout hr arranged married set her husband on fire. She pleased loss of control
Principle: Loss of control (Provocation, in this case) need not be sudden, but the longer the delay the less likely it is to succeed as a defense
R v Byrne*
Facts: A man murdered and mutilated a girl, but claimed to be suffering from irresistible impulses
Principle: Established the classic definition of abnormality of the mind: ‘A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal’
R v Clinton, Parker and Evans*
Facts: Conjoined appeals considering the defence of loss of control, focusing particularly on the sexual infidelity provisions of the defense
Principle:
- Only one element of the loss of control defense needs to be missing for it to fail.
- The ‘things said or done’ trigger is judge objectively.
R v Cocker
Facts: The defendant suffocated his wife, who was suffering from an incurable disease, after she repeatedly requested he do so. He claimed to have snapped and given in
Principle: Loss of control does not need to be complete. Here, it failed because he had retained control and had checked if she had changed her mind
R v Conroy
Facts: The defendant and his victim resided at a special home you young persons with Asperger’s. He killed his victim because he thought he could have sex her. He was convicted and appealed the trial judge’s direction to the jury that they should assess the rationality of his decision-making process when considering the partial defense of diminished responsibility. The appeal was dismissed
Principle: For the purposes of the partial defense of diminished responsibility, the jury may assess all relevant circumstances proceeding (including a long time before) and following the killing. This may involve appraising the impact of the abnormality of mental functioning both on the defendant’s decision-making generally and also on the particularly decision to kill V - his decision-making process and his final decision may be enmeshed.
R v Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer
Facts: Conjoined appeals concerning loss of control and situations where the defendant had incited violence
Principles: Loss of control is not available where you have incited the violence for the purpose of using violence
R v Dowds
Facts: A man stabbed his partner after binge drinking and tried to use ‘acute voluntary intoxication’ (a condition recognized by medical authorities) to established diminished responsibility
Principles:
1. The court held that certain ‘recognised medical conditions’ would not stand as medical conditions for the purpose of diminished responsibility
- Heavy binge drinking is not sufficient for a recognized condition
R v Fenton
Facts: A man suffering from a number of mental issues (described in court as a psychopathic personality), whilst severely intoxicated, shot four people
Principles:
1. Hatred, jealousy or anger will not in themselves demonstrate a substantial impairment of one’s ability to exercise self-control
- Alcohol consumption is unlikely to be an ‘abnormality of the mind’ (although it can be in certain circumstances - See R v Wood)
R v Golds*
Facts: The defendant killed his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
Principles: The jury does not need to be directed as to what ‘substantial’ means - they can approach it as ‘common-sense people’.
R v Joyce; R v Kay
Facts: The defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. During a three-day bender, he became psychotic and stabbed his victim to death. His unsuccessful defense relied on diminished responsibility. He argued that the intoxication was not voluntary because of his dependency, and that his underlying schizophrenia had caused his actions anyway.
Principles: For the purpose of the partial defense of diminished responsibility, the reconfigured medical condition may be (1) schizophrenia of such severity that it is substantially impaired the defendant’s responsibility; or
(2) schizophrenia coupled with a drink/drug dependency syndrome (note that voluntary intoxication would not be enough here) which together substantially impaired his responsibility. The defendant here could not prove either on the balance of probabilities as his schizophrenic condition was stable.
R v Lloyd
Facts: A man strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility
Principles: ‘Substantial’ impairment is not ‘total’’ impairments, and is open to the jury to decide
R v Martin (Antony)
Facts: The defendant shot at intruders on his farmland after a number of burglaries, killing one by firing a shotgun at his back as he ran away. he pleased self-defense but was convicted of murder. he later had the sentence reduced to manslaughter through diminished responsibility
Principles: The ‘fear of serious violence’ trigger for the loss of control defense is subjective. here, the burglar appeared to have been shot as he ran away, so self-defense could not apply. A latter appeal introduced evidence of paranoid personality disorder, and diminished responsibility was accepted by the court
R v Morhall
Facts: The defendant stabbed a man who taunted him about his addiction to sniffing glue
Principles: A person cannot rely on intoxication to explain why they lost self-control, but could rely on being taunted about addition as a trigger to explain why they lost self-control
R v Richens*
Facts: The defendant stabbed a man who was taunting him about raping his girlfriend. On appeal the trial judge was held to have misdirected the jury about loss of control by saying that it needed to be ‘complete’ loss of control.
Principles: Loss of control does not need to be ‘complete’
R v Saunders
Facts: The defendant punched a stranger in the face, breaking his nose.
Principles: GBH is defined as ‘serious harm’
R v Simcox
Facts: A man, whilst chasing his third wife, shot his sister, killer her, and his wife, who survived
Principles: ‘Substantial’ impairment can mean ‘more than trivial’
R v Sutcliffe
Facts: The notorious ‘yorkshire ripper’ pleased diminished responsibility based on the basis that he has been commanded by god to kill prostitutes
Principles: The burden of proof for diminished responsibility is on the defense, on the balance of probabilities
R v Tandy
Facts: The defendant was an alcoholic, and killed her daughter after drinking a full bottle of vodka. She normally drank a weaker drink, and chose to stop drinking late on that day.
Principles: Being drunk in this context was not evidence of abnormality of mind (although alcoholism can be), as she was able to exercise control over her drinking in this case
R v Thornton
Facts: A woman killed her abusive, alcoholic husband after he had made continually abusive comments and threats.
Principles: The ‘Things said or done’ trigger is judged objectively, and loss of control is based on the precise moment of killing
R v Vickers*
Facts: The defendant was burgling a house when he attacked the occupier and cause him serious harm. The victim later died.
Principles: ‘Malice aforethought’is defined as intention to kill or intention to cause GBH
R v Wood
Facts: The defendant was an alcoholic who killed another man which a mean cleaver following two days of heavy drinking.
Principles: If drinking is truly involuntary, it can be evidence of an abnormality of mind based on alcoholism.
