Fatal Offences Flashcards
What is murder?
Murder is when D kills a person with the intention to kill or cause really serious harm.
Lord coke defines murder as?
The unlawful killing of a human being under the kings peace within any country of the realm with malice aforethought express or implied
Actus reus for murder
- Unlawful killing
- Where life starts (born) and ends (brain doesn’t work)
- Kings peace
- Within any country or realm
For murder the killing must be unlawful but there will be times where it is lawful, for example?
For necessity (Re A) - needed to be done
Self defence (Martin) - excessive force
Re A
Twins born joined together and would die if not separated. If they were separate done would die.
Held: appeal dismissed, operation could be carried out lawfully by doctors
Unlawful killing may also be commited by an omission, what is a case that shows this?
Gibbins and Proctor
Separated from other children and starved the 7 year old
Held: liable for murder by omission as they had duty by relationship and duty by voluntarily
Human being
The victim must be alive, the law states that human life begins when the child has an ‘independent existence outside the womb’
Attorney General Reference (no.3 1994)
D stabbed pregnant girlfriend which caused her to birth prematurely. The baby was born alive but died at 4 months due to premature birth.
Held: violence towards a foetus which dies after it he’s been born can amount to murder
Malcherek and steel
Both vs life support machines switched off, doctors actions broke the chain of causation.
Held: at the time of switching off the machine, the v was already dead as brain stems had died, doctor not liable for cause of death
Inglis
Lord chief justices stated that a disabled life even a life lived at extreme disability, is not one joy less precious than the life of an able bodied person
Under the kings peace
Killing an enemy soldier during the time of war will not constitute the actus reus of murder or manslaughter
Any country of the realm
If the d is a British citizen, he can be trialed in the uk for murder committed in another country
Causation
Must show the act of the defendant caused the harm to the victim
Causation in fact
‘But for’ test would v have lived
White
Placed cyanide in mother’s drink, died of heart attack.
Held: acquitted for murder as ‘but for’ his actions the v would have died regardless. Was not the factual cause but was convicted of attempted murder
Causation in law
Was ds act morally responsible for the death
Was the d more than the minimal cause
Did he accelerate the death
Pagett
To escape armed police, used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield
Held: convicted as he was morally responsible, more than the minimal cause and accelerated her death
Nai
Breaks the chain of causation
Act of third party
Where D injures the victim, only an intervening act of grossly negligence of the part of a third party will remove causation. Medical treatment unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is palpably wrong.
Jordan
V stabbed and given an antibiotic he was allergic to
Held: treatment was palpably wrong and the doctors actions were deemed to be grossly negligent
Act of the victim
If v tried to escape from D in a grossly negligent way the d may not be found liable
Roberts
D gave a life to a girl in his car and told her to undress, she jumped from the car.
Held: causation not removed as the vs actions were not Ds actions not considered grossly negligent and reasonable in the circumstances
Natural but unpredicted event
Injuries made worse by some event that could not have been predicted or prevented
Egg shell conditions
Don’t break the chain of causation and occurs where there is a physical weakness and the d must take the v how they find them
Blaue
D stabbed a Jehovah’s Witness
Held: causation not removed as the religious beliefs were considered an egg shell condition
What are the types of mens rea?
Direct
Oblique
Reckless
Negligent
Direct intent
Where it is the Ds aim and desire and produces a certain result (subjective)
Mohan
A pc signalled the d to to stop his car, try slowed down and then sped up
Held: Courts stated that direct intent is where the D does everything they can to bring about the desired result
Oblique intent
Where D intends one thing but the actual consequence is something else but it was virtually certain (subjective)
Woolin
Threw his baby at the pram killing the baby
Held: convicted reduced from murder to manslaughter as had to be vertically certain of Ds actions
Recklessness
Where the risk of the consequence will come about but D takes the risk anyways, can be either objective or subjective
Negligence
D will be guilty because he did not act as the reasonable man would have done in the circumstances
Longbottom (NAI case)
Death man walked into the road and car beeper him but couldn’t hear and was ran over
Held: not grossly negligent so didn’t break the chain of causation
Dear (NAI case)
D stabbed v and v reopened his wounds and got sepsis and died
Held: not grossly negligent didn’t break the chain of causation
Voluntary manslaughter
Where D has satisfied the AR and MR of murder however there is a defence as why they killed, reducing the charge to voluntary manslaughter
Loss of control
Partial defence to a charge of murder and if successful, d will be guilty for manslaughter allowing judge discretion in sentencing.
What defines the defence of loss of control?
S.54 Coroners justice Act 2009
S.54 coroners justice act 2009 defines the defence of loss of control “where D is not convicted of murder if”
S.54(1)a
D’s act or omission resulted from a loss of control
S.54(1)b
The loss of control resulted from a qualifying trigger
S.54(1)c
A person of the same age, sex, with the normal degree of self tolerance and restraint and in the circumstances of D might have reached in the same way
Loss of control
S.54(1)a - resulted by loss of self control
S.54(2) - doesn’t have to be sudden and a question for the jury, could be a “cooling off period”
S.54(4) - if they act out of revenge the defence will fail, cannot be any evidence of a plan or pre meditation
Jewell
“Sleeping badly, tired and unable to think straight” doesn’t justify loss of control, liable for murder of his colleague
The qualifying trigger S.54(1)b
s.55 sets out which triggers are allowed to be used for loss of control
Qualifying triggers
S.55(3) - D feared serious violence
S.55(4) - A thing said or done which is extremely grave character
S.55(5) - The trigger can be a combination of both above triggers
S.55(6)c - The trigger cannot be due to a sexual infidelity
Lodge
D lost his self control and killed V, a small scale drugs dealer after V had attacked him with a baseball bat
Held: the jury accepted that D lost his left control in response from serious violence
Zebedee
D murdered his 94 year old father after he had soiled himself repeatedly
Held: his conviction was upheld and the defence of loss of control failed as under s.55(4) the thing done didn’t constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and give D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
The normal person test S.54(1)c
Would a person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint, and in the circumstances of D, react in the same or a similar way
Hill
Consider mental health and history of sexual abuse
Asmelash
Intoxication not taken into account
Rejmanski
D suffered from PTSD as a result of his services in Afghanistan and V provoked him with negative comments about his role in the army
Held: a disorder such as PTSD may be relevant there was insufficient evidence that it was the cause in this case so the judge directed the jury to exclude it as relevant circumstances when applying the “normal person test”
Diminished responsibility
Partial defence to a charge of murder and if successful the D will be guilty of manslaughter
What is diminished responsibility defined in
S.2 homicide act 1957
S.2 homicide act 1957 amended by S.2 coroners and justice act 2009 states
A person should not be convicted of murder if they were suffering from an abnormality of functioning which
Arises from a recognised medical condition
Impairs the understandingly conduct, rational judgment or self control
Provides an explanation for Ds actions
Abnormality of mental function s.52(1)
Must suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning which is established through medical evidence
Byrne states
A state of mine so different from the ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal
Byrne
D was a sexual psychopath who strangled a young woman and mutilated her body, did condition meant he couldn’t control his desires
Held: his conviction was quashed by COA and given manslaughter as his state of mind was different from the ordinary person
Arises from a medical condition s.52 (1)(a)
Abnormality of mental functioning must arise from a medical condition
Challen
Killed her husband with a hammer
Held: overturned as COA as due to the depression caused by the husband the defence of diminished responsibility could be raised
Substantial impairment of ability s.52 (1)(b)
Understand their conduct
Form a rational judgment
Ability to exercise control
Provides an explanation for Ds conduct
Must be a causal connection to why the D killed
Diminished intoxication
If D is intoxicated alone it cannot support the defence of DR dowds
If D has a pre existing AMF but in addition to be intoxicated must ignore the fact they’re intoxicated
Kay
Alcohol and drug abuse, triggered a psychotic episode
Held: defence possible if condition was severe
