Fatal offences

Question 1

Murder

Answer 1

common law offence (different kinds of murder)
wide range of offences (can’t be put in statutes)

Question 2

Lord Coke (definition of murder)

Answer 2

unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s Peace with malice aforethought (evil intent) express (direct intent) or implied (may not have intended to kill person A but had intention to kill person B)

Question 3

Reasonable person

Answer 3

ordinary/normal person

Question 4

Kings Peace

Answer 4

killing out of war (everyday life)

Question 5

AR of murder

Answer 5

D must have killed a reasonable creature (person) in peacetime (out of war), an unlawful manner
-> Killed can either be by act or omission and must cause the death of the victim

Question 6

Reasonable creature

Answer 6

is a human being
it is questioned if a foetus or someone is braindead would be considered a reasonable creature

Question 7

Killing of a foetus

Answer 7

Homicide can’t be charged in killing of a foetus, however the foetus must be injured and have died from those specific injuries

Question 8

Attorney General’s Reference

Answer 8

question in law that the judge is unable to answer (confusion in the law)

Question 9

Brain dead

Answer 9

reasonable grounds for doctors to switch off life support, however if the intention of the person switching off the machine is to deliberately kill the victim, then they can be guilty of murder

Question 10

‘Year and a day’ rule

Answer 10

if the D killed the victim and the victim died within a year and day then they would be charged.

Question 11

‘Year and a day’ rule - The Law Reform Act (1996)

Answer 11

now there is no time limit, however if it is more than 3 yrs, the consent of the Attorney General is needed for the prosecution

Question 12

Illegal

Answer 12

breaking a specific law

Question 13

Unlawful

Answer 13

actions are not supported by the law

Question 14

s 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 - self defence

Answer 14

‘a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime’
If the killing is done in self defence or defence of another then it isn’t unlawful

Question 15

Reasonable force

Answer 15

Level of Force is explained by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 as the amount of force D felt at the time was necessary to protect themselves or another amount of force back must be equivalent to force applied

Question 16

Full defence

Answer 16

if you are successful in court you will get a full acquittal

Question 17

Partial defence

Answer 17

lowers a murder charge to manslaughter
- There is now a partial defence of ‘loss of control’ created by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 when D kills V due to loss of control through fear of serious violence (believe they will be attacked)

Question 18

What determines self defence?

Answer 18

prove that you believe the facts to be as you thought at the time (genuinely believe you are in danger) D has to prove defence

Question 19

Householder cases

Answer 19

You can use more force if you are a householder (statutory)
The force must be used while D is in or partly in a building that is dwelling (includes a shop with residence attached)
- D must not be a trespasser
- D must have believed V to be a trespasser

Question 20

Normal cases

Answer 20

the degree of force is not regarded as reasonable if it is disproportionate in householder cases, it has to be seen as ‘grossly disproportionate’

Question 21

Excessive force

Answer 21

If the amount of force used to defend oneself is deemed excessive, then the defence will fail
Clegg (1995)
Martin (Anthony) 2002

Question 22

Rules of force can justify the defendant’s actions as follow:

Answer 22

• self defence/defence of other/prevention of crime are used to justify Ds actions
• force must be reasonable in the circumstances
• D must have genuinely believed this to be the situation, even if mistaken
• Personality disorder can’t be taken into account
• the amount of force must not be excessive in the circumstances D believed them to be

Question 23

MR of murder

Answer 23

1.Express malice aforethought (direct intention to kill) -> not interested in the reason just whether they intended to kill person (motive not important)
2.Implied malice aforethought (intention to cause GBH) not intention to kill them just harm but they die as a result
Both can be used to prove murder even if in the second, the intention isn’t to kill
Vickers (1957), Cunningham (1981)

Question 24

Intention

Answer 24

Foresight of consequences (how aware is the person of the outcome of their actions)
Moloney (1985) - Foresight of consequence is only evidence from which intention can be inferred
Moloney Rules
How likely is death the consequence of the defendant’s actions? (objective test)
How aware is the defendant of the consequences? (subjective test)
-> Outcome: the foresight of consequence can be used as evidence to prove murder but not intention
-> It can’t be used as proof of intention to murder
Nedrick (1986) - COA suggested juries to ask themselves two questions
1.How probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendant’s voluntary act?
2.Did they foresee the consequences?
Slight adjustment to the question of how likely is ‘death a virtual certainty’?
Woollin (1998) - The HOL disapproved the 2 questions but approved the direction in Nedrick. They wanted to switch the word ‘infer’ to ‘fine’. The defendant needs to appreciate that death/serious injury was a virtual certainty for the jury to find the necessary intention.

Question 25

Transferred Malice

Answer 25

wanting to do something wicked to some but it ends up hurting someone else