Fatal Offences Flashcards
What offences constitute a mandatory life sentence?
- Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty Act 1965)
Definition of murder
No statutory definition of murder
Simply an unlawful killing with intent and action
What offences are common law offences?
Murder and Manslaughter
Murder definiton from Coke Institutes 3 CO INST 47
“Murder is when a [person]…unlawfully killeth…any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought”
Under Queen’s peace means…
During peace time not war time
Actus Reus/Mens Rea of definition
Actus Reus: Unlawful/causing the death/of a person
Mens Rea: with intention to kill/or intention to cause GBH
Newborn death; Poulton (1832)
- A baby that has not been fully delivered can die during delivery even if it breathes, hence as long as the baby isn’t fully delivered it is not considered alive. Hence it is impossible to kill an unborn foetus.
AG’s Ref (No 3 of 1994) [1998] - Pre-natal conduct resulting in post-natal death
Inflicting injury on a pregnant woman causing the death of her child following premature birth held on reference to House of Lords to amount to manslaughter but not murder.
When does life end?
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
- Bland was in Hillsborough and needed a feeding tube. Doctors decided to remove it, was taken to court. Court held that it must be in the patients best interests. Appeal dismissed.
Causation principles for causing death
- Factual causation ‘but for test’
- Legal causation - more than minimal, a significant cause
- Novus Actus Interveniens: free, deliberate, informed acts break causal chain
Murder Law reform (year and a day rule) Act 1996
Murder is when the part hurt/wounded dies within a year and a day as a result of an injury suffered - even after the year and day it can ve considered murder
AR Summary or Murder
There must be a dead body and D was the Killer
MR of Murder
- With malice aforethought
- Intention to kill and cause GBH
MR of Murder Cases
- Hyam (1975)
- Moloney [1975]
- Hancock and Shankland [1986]
- Nedrick
- Woolin [1989] - leading case
- Matthews and Alleyene [2003]
What is Transferred malice?
If the intended victim B is not hit but C is hit instead, the malice is transferred and A is prosecuted the way they would if the intended victim B was hit
Criticism of the laws on murder (Over-inclusive)
- D who intends but does not contemplate V may die, is subject to the same conviction as a contract hitman
- D who reluctantly kills a loved one to ease his suffering in a terminal illness, is as guilty of murder as the contract killer
Criticism of the laws on murder (Under -inclusive)
- D who des not intend to kill or cause GBH, but knows that conduct is highly dangerous will not be liable for murder if death results (unless VR test) and D has appreciated that he will cause V’s death/GBH
- Terrorist warner: D plants a bomb in a public place, then alerts authorities to allow them to evacuate the bomb, no longer certain anyone will die
Murder reform proposal - Law Comission, Report 304; Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide
- 1st Degree murder
- 2nd Degree murder
- Manslaughter
Murder Summary
Actus Reus
- Unlawful killing of another person
Men’s Rea
- Intent to kill and cause GBH (Woolin 98’)
Sentence
- Mandatory life sentence
Criticism and reform
-Offence is both under and over inclusive
Homicide Roadmap
- Murder
- Manslaughter
- Voluntary Manslaughter
- Involuntary Manslaughter
- Other homicide offences
Voluntary Manslaughter
- With ‘malice aforethought’
- Form of mitigated murder - both AR/MR are present, but D’s culpability is reduced by
1. Loss of control
2. Diminished responsibility
3. Suicide pacts
Involuntary Manslaughter
- Without ‘malice aforethought’
- D has caused death without MR to kill/GBH
- Death is result of;
a. Unlawful and dangerous act
b. Gross negligence
c. Subjective recklessness
Loss of control
- Introduced by Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- Replaced the old defence of provocation; a state where one was “not a master of his mind” Duffy 1949
Proving Provocation
- Is there evidence of conduct which may have caused D to lose control?
- Was there a sudden and temporary loss of control
- Was the provocation enough to make a reasonable person act as D did?
Why was Provocation was replaced with Loss of Control?
The requirement of a sudden loss of control and ‘Battered wife syndrome”
Loss of control broke down in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- s.54(1) sets out criteria for loss of control
- Must be temporary, not necessarily sudden
- Qualifying trigger
- Objective requirement
S.55(3) CJA 2009
Sets out qualifying triggers;
- S.55 (3) Fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person
- s.55(4) A thing said or done (or both) which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Loss of control definition - Jewell [2014] EWCA Crim 178
- Has no statutory definition
- “Loss of ability to maintain ones actions in accordance with considered judgement
Criteria for judging loss of control
- Is there evidence that there was un fact a temporary loss of control?
- Is this loss of control due to one or both of qualifying triggers in s.55 CJA 2009?
- Would an person with an ordinary degree of self control, have reacted in the same manner as the defendant?
- Do any disqualifying conditions apply?
Defence to loss of control is unavailable if…
a. D acted in a ‘considered desire for revenge’
b. if the loss of control was self induced
Burden of proff - Loss of control
- Once D has raised issue of loss of control, the burden is on the prosecution to rebut the defence beyond reasonable doubt
Loss of control defence is wider than Provocation defence
The new defence removes the ‘suddeness’ requirement in Duffy 1949
Loss of control defence is narrower than Provocation defence
It requires a particular qualifying trigger - Doughty (1986) has been abolished
- no relying on conduct initiated by the defendant himself
Suicide pacts
S.4 of Homicide Act 1957
Types of Involuntary Manslaughter
- M by unlawful and dangerous act (UDAM)
- M by Gross negligence
- M by Recklessness
Have in common that death or GBH was unintended
Mans… by GR
- D owed V a duty of care
- D breached that duty
- The breach involved a serious and obvious risk of death
- It was reasonably foreseeable
- The breach caused V’s death
- The jury finds the breach serious enough to be a crime
Manslaughter by Recklessness criteria
a. Causing death (via act/omission)
b. with foresight of a risk of death/GBH
c. taking the risk in unjustifiable or unreasonable
Other homicide offences
- Corporate manslaughter
- Corporate Homicide Act 2007
- Infanticide Act 1938
- Causing death by dangerous driving
- Causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult
