Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law yr1 > Death Offences > Flashcards

Death Offences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Murder definition

A

The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought express or implied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Murder facts

A

Unlawful killing
Act or omission
Queen’s peace (not war)
Year and a day (3 years)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Murder AR

A
  1. Human being is dead
  2. Defendant was the factual cause
  3. Defendant was the legal cause
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Murder MR

A
  1. Intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm
  2. Intention can be direct or indirect

Malice aforethought

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

AG Ref’s No.3 of 1994

Murder

A

A person is a human being when it can exist independent of it’s mother

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Malcherek, Steel

Murder

A

A person does when their brain dies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

The but for test

A

But for the conduct of the defendant would the victim have died when they did

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v White

Causation

A

The but for test

Heart attack before poisoning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

The de minimus rule

A

De minimus means insignificant, minute or trifling. The defendants actions must be a more than minimal cause of the victims death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Pagett

Causation

A

The de minimus rule

Human shield

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Substantive and operative cause

A

Whether the original injury inflicted by the defendant is still the operating and substantial cause of death. The chain of causation has not been broken

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v Smith

Causation

A

Operative and substantial cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v Jordan

Causation

A

Operative and substantial cause

Palpably wrong medical care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Thin skull test

A

The defendant had to take the victim as they find them. If the victim dies from some unusual or unexpected condition the defendant is still responsible for their death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Vickers

Murder

A

A person can be guilty of murder even though they didn’t mean to kill, if the defendant intends to inflict GBH and the victim dies that is sufficient for malice aforethought

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Blaue

Causation

A

Jehovah’s witness

Thin skull

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Unforeseeable intervening act

A

An act that is not foreseeable that could break the chain of causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

R v Roberts

Causation

A

Jumped out the car thinking she was being attacked when the defendant put his hand on her leg, he was liable for her actions because it was reasonably forseeable she would jump out of the car

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Cunningham

Murder

A

An intention to cause GBH was sufficient for the MR for murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v Mohan

Murder

A

Direct intention, the defendants aim desire and purpose is to bring about a certain result

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

R v Moloney

Murder

A

Oblique intention, the defendant foresees the consequences but does not want the consequence to happen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Hyam v DPP

Murder

A

Where the outcome is where there is foresight it will always be intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

R v Hancock and Shankland

Murder

A

The greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely the consequence was foreseen and therefore also intended

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

R v Nedrick

Murder

A

The jury should consider how probable the consequence was and whether it was foreseen by the defendant. The jury may then infer intention if they are confident that the defendant realised the consequence was a virtual certainty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Woollin

Murder

A

Entitled to find intention, death or GBH is a virtual certainty if the defendants action. It is a question of evidence not law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Criticisms of murder

A
  • Mandatory life sentence should be changed to a discretionary sentence
  • Problems with oblique intent, should change so that the defendant could be liable for murder but doesn’t have to be
  • Intention to cause GBH has the same conviction of murder but it shouldn’t
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Reforms of murder

A

3 tiers to homicide:

  • First degree murder, mandatory life sentence, most serious murders
  • Second degree murder, discretionary life sentence, intention to cause serious harm or murder with a defence
  • Manslaughter, discretionary life sentence, cause some harm or saw risk to or mr of gross negligence manslaughter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Voluntary manslaughter

A

Where a defendant has committed murder but is relying on a special defence contained in the Homicide Act 1957 and the Coroner’s and Justice act 2009. Burden of proof is on the defence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Loss of control act

A

S.54 of the Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009, old defence used to be it the Homicide Act 1957

30
Q

Is loss of control a complete defence

A

No it is a partial defence

31
Q

If used correctly what will loss of control do

A

Reduce liability for murder to manslaughter

32
Q

Is loss of control a general defence

A

No it is only available for murder

33
Q

Why was the loss of control defence introduced

A

Introduced after concerns about the defence of provocation as there was not always a consistent interpretation and it had a gender bias. Loss of control is broadly similar to the defence of provocation

34
Q

What are the three parts to s.54 Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009

A

Where a person kills or is party to the killing of another D is not to be convicted if:

  1. D’s acts and omissions resulted from D’s loss of self control
  2. The loss of control had a qualifying trigger
  3. 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 in the same way or similar way to D
35
Q

Workman

Burden of proof is on the defence

A

It will be left to the jury to consider with the burden of proof being placed on the prosecution to disprove it, needing sufficient evidence

36
Q

S.54(2)

A

Loss of control

There is no requirement that the loss of self control be sudden

37
Q

Dawes

Loss of control

A

A reaction to circumstances of extreme gravity may be delayed

38
Q

S.54.(4)

A

Loss of control
If D acted in a considered desire for revenge they cannot rely on the defence
Ibrams and Gregory

39
Q

Qualifying triggers

A

Set out in s.55 Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009
S.55(3) Defendants loss of self control was attributable to the defendants fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another identified person
S.55(4) Defendants loss of self control was attributable to a thing or things done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

40
Q

Ahluwahlia

Loss of control

A

S.55(3)

Domestic violence, fear of serious violence classed as a valid qualifying trigger

41
Q

Pearson

Loss of control

A

S.55(3)

Fear of serious violence could be in respect of a child, relative or loved one

42
Q

Dawes

Loss of control

A

S.55(4)
Incited the violence offered to him by V so no qualifying trigger was available
Court of appeal confirmed that sexual infidelity cannot amount to a qualifying trigger

43
Q

Hatter

Loss of control

A

S.55(4)
The question of what constitutes of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged is decided objectively.
Break down of a relationship not normally regarded as circumstances of an extremely grave character nor entitle the aggrieved party to have a sense of being seriously wronged

44
Q

Limitations of qualifying triggers established in

A

S.55(6) Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009

45
Q

S.55(6)(a)

A

Loss of control limitations on qualifying triggers

The fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded

46
Q

S.55(6)(b)

A

Loss of control limitations on qualifying triggers

A person may not raise a qualifying trigger if they incited the thing done or said or the violence

47
Q

Clinton

Loss of control

A

Sexual infidelity
Whilst sexual infidelity alone cannot amount to a qualifying trigger it does not have to be completely disregarded, it could be integral to and form part of the other factors which could be qualifying triggers

48
Q

S.54(1)(c)

A

Loss of control
Degree of tolerance and self restraint
Requires that a person of the defendants sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of the defendant might have reacted in the same way

49
Q

Attorney General for Jersey v Holley

Loss of control

A

S.54(1)(c)
Replaces the reasonable man test which existed under the law of provocation which attracted widespread criticism and was subject to much conflicting interpretation in the courts culminating in this landmark case

50
Q

DPP v Camplin

Loss of control

A

S.54(1)(c)

Reference to sex and age represents the position regards to provocation established in this case

51
Q

Would a history of physical or sexual abuse, depressive illness or other physical or mental characteristics be relevant in s.54(1)(c)

A

Yes however a person’s short temper or excitable nature would not be relevant and would not be considered by the jury

52
Q

Voluntary intoxication and loss of control

A

S.54(1)(c)

Voluntary intoxication is not a matter to be taken into account when considering the defendants characteristics

53
Q

Asmelash

Loss of control

A

S.54(1)(c)
The only relevance of the drunkenness was that it affected D’s self restraint and caused him to act in a way in which he would not have acted if sober

54
Q

Defence of provocation to loss of control

A
  • Easier for women to rely on the defence where they reacted slightly slower
  • Can be used by victims of continued domestic violence
55
Q

Reforms of loss of control

A
  • Define sexual infidelity as currently it does not explain what actually constitutes sexua infidelity
  • A person with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint does not kill
  • Gender bias
56
Q

Does involuntary manslaughter have the ar or mr of murder

A

Where the defendant had committed an unlawful homicide they have the actus reus of murder but did not do so with malice aforethought

57
Q

What are the two main types of involuntary manslaughter

A
  • Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act

- Gross negligence manslaughter

58
Q

What is manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act also known as

A

Constructive manslaughter

59
Q

Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act

A

This offence occurs when the defendant commits any dangerous criminal offence and death occurs as an unintended consequence

60
Q

What is the maximum sentence for unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter

A

Life

61
Q

Ar for unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter

A
  • The defendants act in an unlawful act not an omission
  • The act must be criminal
  • The act must be dangerous
  • The unlawful and dangerous act must cause the death of the victim
62
Q

Who’s job is it to prove the defendant caused the victims death by their criminal act
Constructive manslaughter

A

The prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt

63
Q

Can constructive manslaughter be caused by an omission?

A

No the death must be caused by a positive act

64
Q

Can constructive manslaughter be caused by an omission?

A

No the death must be caused by a positive act

65
Q

Lowe

Constructive manslaughter

A

For the purposes of the offence of constructive manslaughter death must be cause by an act and not an omission

66
Q

Franklin

Constructive manslaughter

A

The act must be criminal
Committed a tort but this held insufficient for the offence of constructive manslaughter. The courts have historically taken a flexible approach as to what constitutes a criminal offence

67
Q

Church

Constructive manslaughter

A

The act must be dangerous

An act can be considered dangerous if “a sober and reasonable person would realise the risk” of their act

68
Q

Dawson

Constructive manslaughter

A

The act must be dangerous
The courts held that the “sober and reasonable person” is assumed to have the same knowledge as the actual defendant and no more

69
Q

Watson

Constructive manslaughter

A

The act must be dangerous

The unlawful act must be sufficient to cause physical injury, emotional and mental shock are not enough

70
Q

Causation within constructive manslaughter

A

The prosecution must prove that D is the factual and legal cause of V’s death

71
Q

Johnstone

Constructive manslaughter

A

Causes death
If the victim intervenes in the chain of causation with a voluntary act, this will be sufficient to break the chain of causation

Law yr1 (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions