Fatal Offences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the definition of murder?

A

The unlawful killing of a human being under the kings peace with malice aforethought express or implied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the 4 elements that must be proven for the actus reus of murder

A

The defendant was killed
The killing was unlawful
The killing was of a human being
The killing took place under the kings peace

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

The defendant killed

A

The killing must be a voluntary positive act or an omission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

The killing was unlawful

A

There is no defence to apply

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

The killing was of a human being

A

The person must have an existence independent of the mother for it to be considered a human being
Attorney general No3 1994

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The killing must be in the kings peace

A

Killing must not be of an enemy in the course of war
R v blackman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

factual causation

A

the defendant can only be guilty of murder if the consequences would not have happened but for the defendant’s actions
R v white

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

legal causation

A

1) the defendant’s actions must be more than a slight or trifling link to the death - de minimus -r v Kimsey
2) it must be a substantial cause of the death - R v Smith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Defences to legal causation

A

novus actus interveniens:
medical treatment
victims own actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Novus actus interveniens

A

if D can show that a completely new circumstance is the cause, his liability will be waivered
if it breaks the chain of causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

medical intervention

A

it will only break the chain of causation if it is so palpably wrong and is the main cause,
R v Jordan
R v chesire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

victims own actions

A

if their actions are reasonably foreseeable it will not be novus actus interveniens, R v Roberts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what happens if a victim fail to seek medical treatment

A

R v Dear
it will not break the chain of causation and therefore will not be novus actus interveniens

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

life support

A

R v Malcherek
switching off the life support machine is not novus actus interveniens

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

thin skull rule

A

R v Blaue
must take the victim as you find them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Mens rea

A

Malice aforethought express or implied meaning a defendant can be guilty of murder even though they didnt intend to kill
R v Vickers

17
Q

Direct intent

A

Where the D intends the specific consequences to occur
R v Mohan

18
Q

Indirect intent

A

When the aim was not the prohibited consequence but in achieving their aim they foresaw they would cause the consequences
Woollin (1998)

19
Q

What are the 2 tests applied for indirect intent?

A

Was death a virtually certain consequence?
Did D appreciate that was the case?

20
Q

Transferred malice

A

When mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the unintended victim if the crime was a similar nature
R v Mitchell

21
Q

What are the types of voluntary manslaughter?

A

Diminished responsibility
Loss of control

22
Q

What is voluntary manslaughter

A

A partial defence to murder where they must have the actus reus, mens rea and the causal link but with mitigating circumstances

23
Q

What are the requirements for diminished responsibility?

A

S52 of the coroners and justice act 2009:
1) an abnormality of mental function
2) which arose from a medical condition
3) and substantially impaired the D’s ability to do one of 3 things
4) the abnormality must provide an explanation for defendants acts

24
Q

Abnormality of mental function

A

R v Byrne

25
Q

From a recognised medical condition

A

E.g - depression
R v Gittens

26
Q

What is the situation with RMC and intoxication

A

Intoxication alone cannot support a defence of DR but where a D has a pre-existing mental disorder intoxication will not prevent him using the defence
- Dietschmann
Alcohol dependence syndrome can be a RMC - Woods

27
Q

Substantially impairs Ds ability to do one of three things

A

Understand the nature of their conduct
Form a rational judgement
Exercise self control

28
Q

Provide an explanation for the D’s acts

A

There must be a significant causal link between the mental functioning and the conduct that resulted in death

29
Q

What is the 3 stage test for loss of control

A

1) the defendant must lose control
2) because of a qualifying trigger
3) a person of their sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance, might have reacted in the same way

30
Q

The defendant must lose control

A

D must lose control, R v jewell
S54(2) loss of control doesn’t need to be sudden

31
Q

What are the measures for loss of control

A

When D lost their ability to maintain their action in accordance with judgement
D lost normal powers of reasoning
D’s behaviour was out of character

32
Q

What is a qualifying trigger

A

S55 CJA
The fear trigger - S55(3)
The things said or done trigger - S55(4)

33
Q

The fear trigger

A

D’s fear of serious violence from the victim
R v ward 2012

34
Q

The things said or done trigger( anger trigger)

A

Something said or done by the victim that:
1) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and
2) caused D to have a justified sense of being wronged
R v Bower (2013)

35
Q

A person of their sex and age may have reacted the same way

A

S54(1)(c)
R v Camplin (1978)

36
Q

Loss of control in relation to infidelity

A

Infidelity will not be sufficient for loss of control
R v Clinton

37
Q

Loss of control in relation to revenge

A

Those acting in a considered desire for revenge cannot rely on the partial defence
S54(4)