Fatal Offences Flashcards
What is the definition of murder?
The unlawful killing of a human being under the kings peace with malice aforethought express or implied
lord coke
What are the 4 elements that must be proven for the actus reus of murder
The defendant was killed
The killing was unlawful
The killing was of a human being
The killing took place under the kings peace
The defendant killed
The killing must be a voluntary positive act or an omission
The killing was unlawful
There is no defence to apply
The killing was of a human being
The person must have an existence independent of the mother for it to be considered a human being
Attorney general No3 1994
The killing must be in the kings peace
Killing must not be of an enemy in the course of war
R v blackman
factual causation
the defendant can only be guilty of murder if the consequences would not have happened but for the defendant’s actions
R v white
legal causation
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
Defences to legal causation
novus actus interveniens:
medical treatment
victims own actions
Novus actus interveniens
if D can show that a completely new circumstance is the cause, his liability will be waivered
if it breaks the chain of causation
medical intervention
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
victims own actions
if their actions are reasonably foreseeable it will not be novus actus interveniens, R v Roberts
what happens if a victim fail to seek medical treatment
R v Dear
it will not break the chain of causation and therefore will not be novus actus interveniens
life support
R v Malcherek
switching off the life support machine is not novus actus interveniens
thin skull rule
R v Blaue
must take the victim as you find them
Mens rea
Malice aforethought express or implied meaning a defendant can be guilty of murder even though they didnt intend to kill
R v Vickers
Direct intent
Where the D intends the specific consequences to occur
R v Mohan
Indirect intent
When the aim was not the prohibited consequence but in achieving their aim they foresaw they would cause the consequences
Woollin (1998)
What are the 2 tests applied for indirect intent?
Was death a virtually certain consequence?
Did D appreciate that was the case?
Transferred malice
When mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the unintended victim if the crime was a similar nature
R v Mitchell
What are the types of voluntary manslaughter?
Diminished responsibility
Loss of control
What is voluntary manslaughter
A partial defence to murder where they must have the actus reus, mens rea and the causal link but with mitigating circumstances
What are the requirements for diminished responsibility?
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
Abnormality of mental function
a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
R v Byrne
From a recognised medical condition
E.g - depression
R v Gittens
What is the situation with RMC and intoxication
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
Substantially impairs Ds ability to do one of three things
Understand the nature of their conduct
Form a rational judgement
Exercise self control
Provide an explanation for the D’s acts
There must be a significant causal link between the mental functioning and the conduct that resulted in death
What is the 3 stage test for loss of control
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
The defendant must lose control
D must lose control, R v jewell
S54(2) loss of control doesn’t need to be sudden
What are the measures for loss of control
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
What is a qualifying trigger
S55 CJA
The fear trigger - S55(3)
The things said or done trigger - S55(4)
The fear trigger
D’s fear of serious violence from the victim
R v ward 2012
The things said or done trigger( anger trigger)
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)
A person of their sex and age may have reacted the same way
S54(1)(c)
R v Camplin (1978)
Loss of control in relation to infidelity
Infidelity will not be sufficient for loss of control
R v Clinton
Loss of control in relation to revenge
Those acting in a considered desire for revenge cannot rely on the partial defence
S54(4)
what is involuntary manslaughter
when an individual has committed an unlawful killing but without an intention to cause grievous bodily harm or kill the victim
what are the 2 type of involuntary manslaughter
unlawful act
gross negligence
what is the 4 part test of unlawful act manslaughter
Positive unlawful act
Objectively dangerous act
Causes death
Mens rea for the unlawful act
positive unlawful act
the unlawful act must be an act and not an omission (R v Lowe)
The unlawful act must be a criminal act and not a civil one (R v Franklin)
The unlawful act does not need to be directed at the victim (R v Mitchell)
All of the elements of the unlawful act must be present in order for a defendant to be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter (R v Lamb)
objectively dangerous act
the act must be dangerous
‘Would the sober and reasonable person recognise that it would subject the victim to at least some harm, albeit not serious harm’
If so then the act is dangerous
R v Church
causes death
Factual causation (but for test from R v White)
Legal causation – substantial and operating cause of death (R v Smith)
if there are intervening acts these must be so independent of the actions of the defendant - medical intervention, victims own act
mens rea for unlawful act
D needs to have the mens rea for the unlawful act
R v Newbury and Jones
what is the 6 part test for gross negligence manslaughter
established in R v Adomako with test reaffirmed in R v Broughton:
1)Did the D owe the V a duty of care?
2)Breach of duty of care
3)At the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death
4)It was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach of the duty that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death.
5)Did the breach cause the death of the victim?
6)Were D’s actions so grossly negligent that they could be classed as criminal?
did D owe a duty of care
R v Singh - duty of landlord towards tenants
R v Adamako - duty owed by doctor
Nettleship v Weston - driver to passenger
breach of duty of care
would the reasonable man with the same skills have done the same in the same situation – R v Holloway
An unqualified person will not be judged at a lower standard than a qualified person
Were D’s actions so grossly negligent that they could be classed as criminal?
R v Bateman “such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to crime against the state deserving of punishment.”
R v Misra and Srivastava – the breach of duty must be so bad that it risked death, not just the health and safety of the victim.
