Fatal Offences Flashcards
What is the legal definition of murder?
Murder is defined as the “unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought” (Lord Coke)
What is the maximum sentence for murder?
Mandatory Life
What are the steps for murder?
1 - the defendants actions must have resulted in the death of a reasonable creature under the kings peace
2 - the defendant must be both the legal and factual cause of the death
3 - the defendant must have the either direct or oblique intent to bring about the death
What cases are relevant for step 1 of murder?
A-G Ref 1997 - a foetus isn’t a reasonable creature
‘Kings Peace’ - can lawfully kill in wartime
Stephen J - omission cannot constitute for AR
Miller - omission can count for AR when a duty to act is present
What cases are relevant for step 2 of murder?
Pagett - factual causation (but for test)
Kimsey - legal causation (substantial cause)
Cheshire - if a doctors actions = standard practise, then they DON’T break the chain of causation
Jordan - if a doctors actions = palpably wrong, then they DO break the chain of causation
Malcherek - switching off life support prior to the D’s actions doesn’t break the chain of causation
Blaue - unforeseeable weakness doesn’t break the chain of causation
What cases are relevant for step 3 or murder?
Mohan - direct intent
Woollin - oblique intent
Vickers - intention for serious bodily harm counts
Latimer - transferred malice is applicable to murder
Thabo Mali - AR/MR can coincide through a series of connected events
What is the legal definition of loss of control?
when the defendant brings about death due to a loss of control caused by a ‘qualifying trigger’ under s54 CJA 2009
What are the steps for loss of control?
1 - has there been a loss of control? (s54) the defendant must also have ‘snapped’ (Jewell)
2 - the loss of control must have been caused by a qualifying trigger (s55) and not an excluded matter. The defendant must fear serious violence or must have been seriously wronged by a statement or action which is ‘extremely grave’
3 - Reasonable reaction test, a person who is the same age and sex as the defendant must react in the same manner for it to be a reasonable reaction.
What are the relevant cases for step 1 of loss of control?
R v Jewel - inability to think straight does not count, the defendant must have ‘snapped’
Cocker - being worn down does not count as a loss
Ahluwalia - delay in reaction to the trigger makes the defence less valid
What are the relevant cases for step 2 of loss of control?
Ward - violence need not be directed at the defendant
Doughty - crying children are not a qualifying trigger
Dawes - a self induced trigger is not a valid trigger
Lodge - if the victim has a weapon it makes their threat more serious
s55(6) - sexual infidelity and revenge are not triggers
Clinton - if an excluded matter makes the qualifying trigger more grave then it is relevant
What are the relevant cases for step 3 of loss of control?
s54(3) - characteristics which relate to the defendants ability to exercise self control are disregarded
Gregson - being taunted about your inability to exercise self control can be taken into account.
Clinton - sexual infidelity and revenge can be taken into account in this stage
Asmelash - voluntary intoxication cannot be taken into account, but involuntary intoxication can be
What is the legal definition of diminished responsibility?
When a person kills while suffering an ‘abnormality of mental functioning.’ Defined by Byrne as “a state of the mind so different that a reasonable man would term it abnormal”
What are the steps for diminished responsibility?
1 - does the defendant have an abnormality of mental functioning? (Byrne)
2 - does the abnormality of the mind arise from a recognised medical condition? (s52A)
3 - does the abnormality of the mind substantially impair the defendants ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form rational judgement or exercise self control?
4 - is there a causal link between the defendants abnormality of mental functioning and their conduct
What are the maybe cases for step 1 of diminished responsibility?
Byrne - abnormality of mental functioning = “a state of the mind so different that a reasonable man would term it abnormal”
What are the maybe cases for step 2 of diminished responsibility?
Martin - all psychological conditions count as an RMC
Ahluwalia - battered wives syndrome is an RMC
Dowds - being intoxicated is not an RMC
Reynolds - post natal depression is an RMC
Stewart - Alcohol dependency is an RMC
Dietshmann - a combination of intoxication and an RMC means that the defendant must prove the same outcome would have occurred regardless of the intoxication
What are the maybe cases for step 3 of diminished responsibility?
Lloyd - the RMC does not need to completely impair the defendant, it must only impair them more than ‘minimally’
What are the maybe cases for step 4 of diminished responsibility?
there are none!
What is the legal definition for gross negligence manslaughter?
when the defendant has grossly caused the death of the victim, through a breach in the duty of care
What are the steps for gross negligence manslaughter?
1 - the defendant must owe the victim a duty of care (Wacker)
2 - the defendant must have breached their duty of care for the victim through acting differently to how the reasonable person would do in that situation (Blyth)
3 - the breach must be ‘gross’ (Bateman) and involved a ‘risk of death’ (Adomako)
4 - there must be a causal link between the gross act and the death of the victim (causation / remoteness)
What are the relevant cases for step 1 of gross negligence manslaughter?
Lord Atkin - a duty of care is owed to anyone who ‘ought to be in his contemplation’
Stone & Dobinson - duty of care can be voluntarily assumed through things like family relationships
Litchfield - contract creates a duty (teachers)
Wacker - there is a duty of care for crime partners
Evans - a duty of care is created for the victim if you put them in a dangerous situation
What are the relevant cases for step 2 of gross negligence manslaughter?
Blythe - trainee doctors are held to the same standard as experienced doctors
Nettleship - learner drivers are held to the standard of experienced drivers
Mullin - age can be taken into account
What are the relevant cases for step 3 of gross negligence manslaughter?
There are none!
What are the relevant cases for step 4 of gross negligence manslaughter?
Pagett - factual causation (but for test)
Cato - legal causation (substantial cause)
Roberts - If the death is foreseeable then the gross act is the cause of death (foreseeability)
What is the legal definition for unlawful act manslaughter/constructive manslaughter ?
when the defendant had committed an initial unlawful act which has resulted in the death of the victim
What are the steps for unlawful act manslaughter?
1 - the defendant must have committed an unlawful act which must be a crime (Lamb)
2 - the unlawful act must be dangerous (Church) a reasonable person would see the risk of some harm resulting from the unlawful act (Church)
3 - the unlawful act must be the substantial cause of death. Thus the defendant must be both the factual and legal cause of the death.
4 - the defendant must have the mens rea for the initial unlawful act (Newbury and Jones)
What are the relevant cases for step 1 of unlawful act manslaughter?
Lamb - if the victim did not believe there was a crime before their death then there is no initial unlawful act
Khan - an omission cannot form the actus reus of the initial unlawful act
What are the relevant cases for step 2 of unlawful act manslaughter?
Larkin - the initial unlawful act does not need to be aimed/intended for the victim
Goodfellow - the initial unlawful act can be on property
Dawson - the initial unlawful act is not dangerous if it results in an unforeseeable consequence (heart attack)
Watson - the age and frailty of the victim are taken into account when considering what is foreseeable
What are the relevant cases for step 3 of unlawful act manslaughter?
Pagett - factual causation (but for test)
Cheshire - Legal causation (substantial cause)
Kennedy - if the victim self induces their death then the chain of causation is broken (drug dealers and buyers)
A-G ref 1980 - defendant can cause death through a series of events (coincidence rule)
Corion - can indirectly cause the death (scaring a crowd and someone gets trampled)
What are the relevant cases for step 4 of unlawful act manslaughter?
Newbury and Jones - the defendant only needs the required mens rea for the initial unlawful act
case specific - any cases relevant to the specific initial unlawful act can be applied
