fatal - offences Flashcards
murder
an unlawful killing of a reasonable person under the kings or queens peace.
murder in a different country
can be trailed in domestic court
when might a killing be lawful
self defence
war
death penalty
who might nopt be a reasonable person
a foetus in the womb
brain dead - doctors have to often switch of life machines however that doesn’t make them criminally liable.
war time killing is classed as under the kings peace
attorney generel ref
- foetus deliberately injured and the child is born but passes away due to these injury’s means the d can be criminally liable.
Malcherek v steel (1981)
brian dead
llp- doctors tuning of life machine does nt make them criminally liable.
Omission
Death can also result from omission or a failure to act
if d has a duty to the v and fails to fulfil that then the AR is present
stone v Dobinson
r v miller
In omission what needs to be proven?
There is a direct and unbroken link between ds act and the consequence
stone v Dobinson
omission
they had a duty of care to her sister.
lp - liable for her death ad they took responsibility of her when they took her in.
R v miller
omission
fire to mattress
legal principle - D can be liable for their reckless behaviour even if they didn’t mean for the consequence to happen.
Factual causation
needs to be established in every criminal case
the but for test
in some cases when the but for test is used the d may not be liable
R v paget
But for test - factual causation
p armed with a shotgun, used v as a human shield which resulted in her being shot by the police
held - but for p using her a human shield she would not have died. his conduct was the actual cause for her death.
legal causation
D act must be the substantial cause of consequence
- must be more than a minimum cause
R v Cato
legal causation
drug addicts spent the night injecting each other with heroin one died
- Mr Cato liable for manslaughter this is due to the injections being more than a minimum cause.
think skin rule
taking teh victim as you find them
R V Balue
Think skin rule
D stabbed V who was a johvass witness she refused blood transfusion.
- D was found liable
Novus Actus interveniens
Novus Actus Interveniens
- a new act of event and D can no longer be responsible for the consequences
- the act must be very different
R v Jordan
V stabbed in the stomach and was recovering in hospital. was given antibiotics and liquids. Previously he had an allergic reaction to antibiotics. He died
- action of the medical was the main cause of the death not initial stab wound.
- D was not liable for murder
R v Smith
Novus act interveniens
solider stabbed his comrade. 2 people carried the v and dropped him on the way to medical failed he had a punctured lung.
- d was found guilty of murder
legal principle - it doesn’t matter if the action was sole cauue of death it was still an operatig cause of death.
Action taken by victim
is death the result from the independent act the v took
- is the threat D shows serious? if it is then it is more reasonable for v independant action
R v Roberts
action taken by victim
D drove down a side road and sjubjected v to unwanted sexual advances. V jumped out of moving car and was injured
- d liable for injuries
- hadn’t been broke by actions
-
R V William
- v jumped out of moving car because D tried to steal his wallet.
- chain of causation was broke by v intervening act
- d was not liable for imjuries
Malice express and implied
- what motives is there in murder
Malice - doesnt need to proved
murder can come for other motives
Aforethought
Aforethought - no previos planning
- the intention isnt after the act
MR- intention to kill or cause gbh
Malice
doesn’t to proved. murder can come from other motives - money revenge
Direct intention
result of act is what D wanted to do.
R v Vickers
direct intention
D broke into vs sweet shop. he knew the old lady was deaf. lady came in the cellar and saw d. He attacked v. she dies from the injuries.
- held, intention to cause gbh which resulted in death of v.
-implies necessary intention to commit murder.
indirect intention
D did not intend particular result, but in acting the way he did he would of realide a risk of some harm.
R v Woolin
indirect intention
D looses his temp with 3 month old baby/. throws baby against the wall. causes head injuries Leeds to death.
- if death or gbh is virtually certain then courts can pull out intention.
R V Nederick
poures parrafin through ex-girlfirnds house intention to scare her. Killed a child.
- he was found guilty of murder
Virtually certain test - pouring parrafin through teh door he knew there was a child in there
Mathew and alleyne
D throws V in the river. aware she v couldn’t swim. They left her and v died.
- d appealed against murder
courts affirmed appeal with virtual certainty test.
loss of control
key elements
key elements.
- D must have loss control and death must be a result.
- must be a qualifying trigger (things said and done.)
- a normal person would of acted the same in Da postition
R v Jewell
D drove to vs house where he him twice. convivted of murder ajndappealed onloss of control
lp- clear it was preplanned, insufficient evidence.
loss of control - qualifying trigger
things sed mand done can qualify for a qualifying tigger.
if d kills v due to unfaithfulness. loc cannot be claimed.
R v Clinton 2012
things said and done.
- V taunted d with details of her sexual exploits in her affair. She told d she didnt want their children living with him. she taunted him about looking up suicide websites saying he didn’t have the courage. day after d strangled v to death.
lp - sexual infidelity was not the only trigger courts ordered a retrial so all maters could be considered by the jury.
R v Ballie
things said and done
D youngest son told d a drug dealer was supplying to all his sons and threated to punish them for changing dealers. D went into rage armed with a shotgun and razor and as he tried to escape he shot him killing him.
lp m- courts stated D remained out of control. No time to cool down between provocation and killing. Therefore D was successful using provocation as a defence.
Involunrary manslaughter
- an unlawful killing when d doesnt have the intention of commiting murder
key elements involuntary manslaughter
- unlawful act
-dangerous (objectively) - not influenced by opinion or feelings - substantial cause by death
Church 1966
recognises that there is some risk to harm
Lamb
l and freind where playing witha retriver they knew ot was loaded
held - v did not fear d
factors to be considered when loc to be a sucessfull defence
characteristics
jiry needs to take in account wheather a persom of D age and gender with a normal degree of tolerac would act the same if tehy where put in teh same situation
Camplin 1978
15 year old boy killed his sexual tormenter. D loss self control
- reasonable man does not have to be an adult
delay
- Ds loss of control does not need to be sudden. - possible for there to be a delay between incident causing loc and the killing
Delay is taken in account by the jury when deciding killing resulted from loc
R v Ahulwaliaor
D had been abused by v over many years. abuser threatnded d with violnce. Next day when v was aleep D poured petrol over and set him alight. convivted of murfer
-to long delay
in the new law it would be seen as loc defence
alowed under diminshed responsability with fresh evidence
r v thornton
v was a heavy drinker who regular abused D. After an incident D went into the kitchen got a knife and stabbed v to death.
- convicted of murder
=- first appeal was unsuccessful no sudden and temp to loc
- second appeal held - a long build up of provocation
- got free of charges
- some facts would be successful now with loc
factor to conisder
revenge - loc is not available to d who acts from motive of revenge
- even if d loses self control as a result of a qualifying trigger
incitement - loc is not available when d deliberately invited one of the qualifying trigger in order to provide an excuse for violence
-burden of proof if thereis not enlough evidnce prosecution can disaprove the defence.
involuntary manslaughter
A person who kills or is a party of the killing of another is not convicted of murder if suffering with an abnormality of mental functioning
key elements of involuntary manslaughter
- abnormality of mental functioning
- recognised medical condition
- substantial impairment
- provide an explanation for conduct
R v Bryne
diminished responsability
D was a sexual psycopath who strangled a young women and mutated her body.
becaus eof his condition he wa sunable to control he perverted desires.
- he pleaded deminished resposabolity so that he should be guilty of manslaughter not murder
held - perverted desires are not seen as a mental illness.
key elemement 1
diminished responsibility
abnormality of mental functioning
- was the state of d mind abnormal at the time
key elemement 2
diminished responsibility
recognised medical condition
- has been proven before act has taken place
- the cause of mental functioning is a recognised medicial condition
key elemement 3
diminished responsibility
key elemement 4
diminished responsibility
