Fatal offences Flashcards
Murder
common law offence (different kinds of murder)
wide range of offences (can’t be put in statutes)
Lord Coke (definition of murder)
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)
Reasonable person
ordinary/normal person
Kings Peace
killing out of war (everyday life)
AR of murder
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
Reasonable creature
is a human being
it is questioned if a foetus or someone is braindead would be considered a reasonable creature
Killing of a foetus
Homicide can’t be charged in killing of a foetus, however the foetus must be injured and have died from those specific injuries
Attorney General’s Reference
question in law that the judge is unable to answer (confusion in the law)
Brain dead
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
‘Year and a day’ rule
if the D killed the victim and the victim died within a year and day then they would be charged.
‘Year and a day’ rule - The Law Reform Act (1996)
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
Illegal
breaking a specific law
Unlawful
actions are not supported by the law
s 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 - self defence
‘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
Reasonable force
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
Full defence
if you are successful in court you will get a full acquittal
Partial defence
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)
What determines self defence?
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
Householder cases
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
Normal cases
the degree of force is not regarded as reasonable if it is disproportionate in householder cases, it has to be seen as ‘grossly disproportionate’
Excessive force
If the amount of force used to defend oneself is deemed excessive, then the defence will fail
Clegg (1995)
Martin (Anthony) 2002
Rules of force can justify the defendant’s actions as follow:
- 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
MR of murder
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)
Intention
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.
Transferred Malice
wanting to do something wicked to some but it ends up hurting someone else
