Fatal Offences Flashcards
Who defines murder, and what is it?
Lord Coke: The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the queen’s peace with malice aforethought express or implied.
Punishment for murder, in what act
Murder Act 1965-Mandatory Life
Beckford
Self defence=not unlawful killing
R v Steele
Can be omission too if there is a duty to act-turning off life support when braindead:lawful
Reasonable creature
Not a foetus
Under queen’s peace
Not in war time
Mens rea for murder, and outlined where
S1 Homocide Act 1957
Express malice aforethought-intent to kill
Implied malice aforethought-intent to cause GBH
R v Vickers
Intent to cause GBH
Broke into shop, attacked shopkeeper. V fird of resulting shock. Held intended to cause GBH, so was guilty of murder
Hancock v Shankland
Dropped concrete block from bridge, hit taxi driver. Held:oblique intent as virtual certainty serious harm would be caused.
Voluntary manslaughter definition, and what acts are they contained in?
A defendant commits murder but has a defence contained in Homocide 1957, and Coroners and Justice 2009
What is significant about the defence for murder?
Not acquitting, it is a partial defence:reduce sentence
Who is the burden of proof on in voluntary manslaughter cases?
Burden is on defendant to show defence applies. Prosecution must prove false
What are the 2 defences?
Loss of self control (C&J 2009)
Diminished responsibility
Define loss of control, and what case?
R v Jewell-loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgement
S54(2) Coroners & Justice Act 2009, what cases as well
Clinton-Doesnt need to be sudden, just needs to be lost.
Dawes-may result from cumulative impact of earlier events. Reactions can be delayed
(Used to have to be sudden and temporary in Homocide Act)
S54(4) Coroners & Justice Act 2009
Revenge is not a defence. More deliberate=less likely to have lost control
S54(6) C&J 2009, what case also
Self induced loss of control is not a defence-Dawes
R v Ahluwalia
Wife abused and threatened to be killed by husband. She set him on fire when asleep. Held: has grounds on diminished responsibility, but no loss of control as was not sudden or necessary, but now Coroners act allows it
R v Dawes
Attacked man who fucked his wife. Man fought back. D stabbed him. D claimed for loss of control, but denied as he initiated the violence.
3 Qualifying triggers and section no. (For the 2nd one)
FEAR of serious violence resulting in LOC
Anger- S55(4)-things said or done of grave character, causing a justifiable sense of being wronged. (Objective test)
Combination of 2
Cases for qualifying triggers
Doughty-crying baby was held to amount to provocation previously in homocide act, not anymore!!
Hatter-break up=not qualify
R v Mohammed-killing daughter in honour killing=failed reasonable man test, his own perception irrelevant
Combination of fear/anger restrictions
s55(6)(c)-sexual infidelity itself is not a qualifying trigger, but circumstances surrounding may be considered. (Clinton)
What happens after deciding qualified trigger for cause of loss of control
Objective test-would a person of same sex and age react in the same way
S54(3) and case
For objective test, take into account all cirucmstances apart from those that impact tolerance and self restraint e.g Asmelash-he was intoxicated but was not considered
Van Dongen
Jury felt a normal person would have lost control, but not punched and kicked V on the pavement, so defence unavailable
4 elements of diminished responsibility
D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
Arising from a recognised medical condition
Which substantially impaired D’s ability to:
understand nature of conduct
form rational judgement
exercise self control
Provides an explanation for D’s actions in killing
R v Byrne
State of mind so different a reasonable person would call it abnormal
Arose from medical condition cases (3)
Byrne-psychopathy
Gittens-Chronic depression
Paranoia-Martin
Golds
Substantially impaired D’s ability-
Judges should use their own common sense to define substantial
Brown
Abnormality provides explanation for D’s actions in killing
Must be a causal link between D’s abnormality and killing, but need not be the only one, just needs to be a significant factor
Dietschmann
D suffered from mental disorder, was also heavily intoxicated when he killed V.
Held:even if alcohol was principal cause, his disorder was still a signficant cause so not liable
