Criminal law — Murder to Involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
What is the actus reus for murder?
The unlawful killing of a reasonable being under the kings peace.
What does ‘unlawful killing’ mean?
Killing can be lawful -e.g. wars or self defense, prevention of a crime (provided only reasonable force was used).
Omissions - Can be the actus reus provided D has a duty to act.
What does ‘of a reasonable being mean’
Whether the victim is a foetus or someone of life support machine.
- Foetus not considered ‘in being’ until completely born.
> However, if the foetus is deliberately harmed in the womb and dies as a result of the injuries after birth, the attacker will more likely be liable for manslaughter rather than murder. AG’s reference (No.3 of 1994) 1997.
- Doctors can turn of life support machine if ‘brain dead’
What does ‘under the kings peace’ mean?
Killing an enemy in war is not murder as they aren’t under the king’s peace. However, killing a prisoner of war would be.
Cato (1976)
Two heroin users spent the night injecting eachother with heroin and water. One died. The other was charged with manslaughter.
- Held: The heroin need not be the only cause but was more than a minimal cause
What is the mens rea for murder?
Malice aforethought, express or implied. Can be surmised as intention to kill or cause GBH.
Vickers (1957)
D broke into a cellar of an old lady’s shop. When she found him there he attacked her savagely punching and kicking her in the head. She died of her injuries.
- Held: Intention to cause GBH was enough for murder
Maloney (1985)
D had been drinking with stepfather (who he liked). They challenged eachother to see who could unload his gun and be ready to fire first. D won, fired the gun and killed V. D maintained that he had no intention to kill him “it was just a lark”
- Held: HoL guilty of manslaughter not murder. Nothing less than intention to kill or cause serious harm would do for murder.
What type of defense is LOC and diminished responsibility?
A partial defence.
Loss of control s54(1)
Where a person kills or is party to the killing of another person,
1a) D’s acts or omissions resulted from D’s loss of control
2) It does not matter if the LOC was sudden
Loss of control s54(3)
Ss1(a) does not apply if in doing or being party to the killing, D acted in a considered desire for revenge.
R v Jewell
D shot V at point blank range with a shotgun. He said he lost his self control but had been found in his car with a weapon, ammunition and a survival kit.
- Held: Insufficient evidence to suggest he lost control
Loss of control s53(3)
D’s loss of self control had a qualifying trigger if it was attributable to:
- D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person.
Loss of control s55(4)
Things done or said that:
a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
b) Caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Loss of control s55(6)
(Exceptions)
a) D’s fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a thing which D included to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence.
b) Sense of being wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if D incited the thing to be done or said for providing an excuse to use violence .
c) Thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.
R v Dawes
The defendant, Mark Dawes went to his estranged wife’s house and found her asleep on the sofa with V. D awoke him V and started punching him in the face and hitting him with a bottle.
According to D, V took the bottle off him and attacked him. D then grabbed a knife from the kitchen and fatally stabbed him in the neck.
At trial he raised the defence of self-defence which was not accepted by the jury. The judge held that the defence of loss of control could not be put to the jury under s.55(6)(a) as he had incited the violence.
What is the objective test?
S.54(1)(c) A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted the same or similarly.
Circumstances doesn’t apply or include things that relate to D’s general capacity for tolerance or self restraint.
Does loss of control need to be sudden?
No.
s.54(2) No need for the loss of control to be sudden but the longer the delay, the less likely is the judge to leave the defence to the jury, or the jury to believe that the killing resulted from a loss of self control.
Ibrams and Gregory (1981) CA
An attack planned over several days was not a sudden loss of control.
Mohammed (2005) CA.
Bad temper should be disregarded (as should any other factors which lower the tolerance of D beyond that of a reasonable man.)
Baillie
D discovered that his sons had been supplied with drugs and threatened with violence by a drug dealer. He took his sawn-off shotgun and cut-throat razor, and drove round to the estate where the dealer lived. On the way he was delayed by a minor road accident.
After an argument at the house of the dealer, he fired his gun and killed the man. The judge told the jury to ignore the possible provocation caused by the original threats: too much time had lapsed. The Court of Appeal overturned his subsequent conviction for murder and ordered a re-trial: the jury should have been allowed to consider whether the defendant was still suffering from a loss of self-control.
It is arguable that his action in killing his victim did not display a “considered” desire for revenge, and so he might still attract the defence.
AG for Jersey v Holley (2005) PC.
s.55(6)(c) Sexual infidelity exclusion
Holley and his girlfriend were alcoholics. She told him she’d had sex with another man. He picked up an axe, intending to leave the flag and chop wood. His girlfriend then said “you haven’t got the the guts.”
He therefore hit her 7/8 times with the axe, killing her. Under s.55(6)(c), her infidelity would be disregarded as a qualifying trigger. However, her taunting his lack of courage would be relevant.
Clinton 2012
The appellant and his wife both suffered from depression for which they were on prescribed medication. He was experiencing financial difficulties and stress at work. He and his wife agreed to a trial separation for four weeks as she needed time out.
She left him with the children and moved into her parent’s home. The appellant did not cope well with this and became obsessional and had been looking at suicide websites. Two weeks later she revealed to him that she was having an affair. He asked for her to come to the matrimonial home in order to tell the children together that their marriage was over. She agreed to meet.
However he had arranged for the children to be elsewhere at the time she was due to come and he was heavily intoxicated. At the meeting he killed her by repeatedly beating her on the head with a wooden baton and strangled her with a belt. He then took photos of her naked body in various poses and texted them to her lover.
POL: Sexual infidelity may be part of the circumstances but not the qualifying trigger.
Full name of diminished responsibility
Reformed diminished responsibility s2(1) Homocide act 1967 as amended by the Coroners and Justice act 2009 (s.52)
