Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Fatal offences > Flashcards

Fatal offences Flashcards

1
Q

What three areas are covered under the fatal offences topic?

A

murder
involuntary manslaughter
voluntary manslaughter

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

What is murder?

A

murder is a common law homicide offence which means there’s an offence not defined by any Act of Parliament/

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

What was the definition of murder given by an individual in the 17th century and who was this individual?

A

Edward Coke - ‘The unlawful killing of a reasonable person [human being] in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought express or implied.

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

What is the structure of applying murder for Ao1?

A

Actus Reus
Causation
Mens rea

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

What is the actus reus?

A

the guilty act

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

What are the 4 elements of actus reus?

A

the defendant killed
the killing was an unlawful killing
the killing of a reasonable creature
the killing took place under the kings peace

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

What does ‘the defendant killed’ mean as an actus reus element?

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
8
Q

what is a positive act under the actus reus of murder?

A

a straightforward kill - stabbing a person or shooting them.

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

what is meant by the ‘killing was an unlawful killing’?

A

There weren’t any defences for the killing

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

What is meant by ‘reasonable creature’?

A

‘human being’

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

What is classified as a ‘human being’ under the reasonable creature rule for actus reus of murder? and when will a person not be charged of murder?

A

A defendant can’t be charged with murder in respect of the killing of a foetus. This child has to have an ‘existence independent of the mother’ for it to be considered a ‘creature of being’.

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

What gives the authority for the ‘reasonable creature’ element of the actus reus for murder?

A

A-G Ref No.3 1994

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

What does the Infant Life (preservation) Act 1929 set out?

A

The crime of ‘child destruction’ - in response to the crime of killing an unborn but viable foetus

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

What does the ‘kings peace’ mean as an element for actus reus of murder? Give a case example:

A

A killing must no be the killing of an enemy in the course of war - will not be murder : R v Blackman

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

What must be noted from the Blackman case?

A

Blackman was originally convicted of murdering an insurgent in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, however, his conviction for murder was, on appeal, substituted for manslaughter (diminished responsibility - adjustment disorder)

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

What does causation mean?

A

Murder is a result crime therefore the D cannot be found guilty unless his act or omission CAUSED the death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What are the two types of causation?

A

Factual and Legal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is Factual causation? Give a case example:

A

the defendant can only be guilty if the consequences would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendants conduct: R v White and R v Pagett

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is the ‘but for’ test?

A

‘but for’ the actions or omissions of the defendant, would the victim have suffered injury/damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What happened in the case of R v White?

A

The son attempted to kill his mother to get the inheritance by putting potassium sionide in her milk every night before bed. The mother actually died of a heart attack but during the post mortem they noticed that she had been poisoned. The courts applied the factual test and he wasn’t found guilty of murder but was found guilty of attempted murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What happened in the case of R v Pagett?

A

D used his girlfriend as a human shield when police were trying to arrest him for shooting her father and kidnapping her mother. A police sniper fired at Pagett killing his girlfriend. Pagett claimed he was not the factual causation of her death. The court disagreed - but for Pagett’s actions, she would not have died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What are the two issues that need to be looked at when establishing legal causation? With relevant cases:

A

-Is the D’s action more than a minimal cause of the death: R v Kimsey
-Whilst the D’s conduct must be more than minimal it also needs to be a substantial cause of the death - was the actions of the D the operating cause of the death: R v Smith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What happened in the case of R v Smith?

A

Soldier was in a fight and was stabbed. The doctor failed to diagnose a punctured lung and the soldier died. The D appealed against a murder conviction contending that is the victim had received the correct medical treatment he would not have died. It was held that the stab wound was the operating (main) cause of death and therefore the conviction was upheld

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is meant by ‘de minimis rule’?

A

the first issue is establishing legal causation - Is the defendants action more than a minimal cause of the death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What is the Novus Actus Interveniens?

A

Sometimes something might happen between the actions of the D and the death of the V and it needs to be established who is the ‘actual’ cause of the V’s death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What two issues might be considered intervening acts in legal causation?

A

Medical treatment/intervention
Victim’s own actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

When will the medical treatment intervention break the chain of causation? Give a case example:

A

If the medical intervention is so palpably wrong as to make the original wound a mere part of the case history, would it be a novus actus interveniens: R v Jordan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What happened in the case of R v Cheshire?

A

The V was being treated in hospital after being shot. The V had to have a tracheotomy inserted which eventually caused a narrowing of the airways and weeks later after it was removed the V died. The treatment wasn’t an independent cause of the death but rather a mere contribution which didn’t break the chain of causation?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

When will a victims own actions break the chain of causation? Give 2 case examples:

A

In a situation where the D’s act in such a way as to lead the victim to take avoiding action. This will not be the case if the V is considered to have been ‘daft’ in how they reacted: R v Roberts , R v Williams and Davis

30
Q

What happened in the case of R v Roberts?

A

A female hitchhiker was picked up by a male driver who attempted to touch her inappropriately. The V jumped out the car whilst it was still moving and died as a result. The D was found guilty as he started the chain of events

31
Q

What happened in the case of R v Williams and Davis?

A

A male hitchhiker was picked up by two men who tried to mug him and steal his belongings. The V jumper out the car to avoid this but survived. It was held that him jumping out was of his own actions and wasn’t reasonable so the D wasn’t guilty

32
Q

What happens when the V fails to seek medical intervention? Give a case example:

A

R v Dear: The re-opening of wounds caused by the D wasn’t a break in the chain of causation and the wounds were still an operating and substantial cause of the death.

33
Q

Does the switching off a life support machines act as a novus actus? Give a case example:

A

No: R v Malcherek

34
Q

What is the thin skull rule? Give a case example:

A

The D must take his V as he finds him. This means if the D has a particularly vulnerable V he is fully liable for the consequences even if an ordinary person wouldn’t have suffered sued severe consequences: R v Blaue

35
Q

What is meant by mens rea?

A

The guilty mind behind a crime

36
Q

What is the mens rea for murder?

A

malice aforethought either expressed or implied

37
Q

What are the 2 different types of intentions for mens rea?

A

express malice aforethought
implied malice aforethought

38
Q

What does R v Vickers state?

A

This means that a D can be guilty of murder even though they did not intend to kill

39
Q

What happened in the case of R v Vickers?

A

Vickers broke into a sweet shop owned by an elderly woman. When caught by the storeowner he struck her multiple times which resulted in her death. The court held that an intention to cause GBH was sufficient to establish the mens rea for murder.

40
Q

What is ‘intent’ in mens rea? and what are the two tyoes?

A

The prosecution must show that the D intended to kill the victim, there is direct intent and indirect/oblique intent

41
Q

What is direct intent? Give a case example:

A

If the D intends the specific consequences to occur: R v Mohan

42
Q

What is indirect/oblique intent? Give a case example:

A

What happens when the D’s aim was not the prohibited consequences but, in achieving their aim, they realised or foresaw that they would cause the consequence: Woollin

43
Q

What is transferred malice? Give a case example:

A

When the mens rea is transferred from the intended V to the unintended V. If D intends to harm V 1 and, in error, harms V 2 the D is still guilty of the crime against V 2: R v Mitchell

44
Q

When can malice not be transferred?

A

From a person to an object and vice versa, as they are different types of crime (property damage and personal injury)

45
Q

What is voluntary manslaughter?

A

A partial defence to murder and to be charged with voluntary manslaughter the D must have committed the actus reus, have men’s rea, and there must be a casual link between the D’s acts and the death

46
Q

What are the two types of voluntary manslaughter?

A

diminished responsibility
loss of control

47
Q

What statue sets out diminished responsibility?

A

S.2(1) Homicide Act 1957 as amended by S.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

48
Q

What 3 things does S.52 state that the D must be able to demonstrate?

A

-An abnormality of mental functioning
-Which arose from a recognised medical condition
-Substantially impaired the D’s ability to:
-understand the nature of their conduct
-from a rational judgement
-exercise self-control
-the abnormality must provide an explanation for the D’s acts and omissions

49
Q

What is meant by abnormality of mental functioning under diminished responsibility? Give a case example:

A

Must provide an explanation for the D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. Therefore it’s necessary to prove the D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning: R v Byrne

50
Q

What happened in the case of R v Byrne?

A

The D murdered a young girl staying in a hostel. He then mutilated her body. He did so as he was suffering from irresistible impulses which he was unable to control. The court stated that an abnormality of mental functioning is a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal.

51
Q

What is meant by ‘from a recognised medical condition’ under diminished responsibility? Give a case example and what medical condition the D had:

A

The D must be suffering from a recognised medical condition.
Campbell: frontal lobe brain damage and epilepsy
R v Smith: premenstrual tension
R v Gittens: Depression
R v Swann: Intoxication AND underlying depression

52
Q

Is intoxication a defence for diminshed responsibility?

A

Intoxication alone can’t support a defence of diminished responsibility. But, where the D has a pre-existing mental disorder, intoxication doesn’t prevent them from using the defence.

53
Q

What is meant by ‘provides an explanation for the D’s acts and omissions’ as a defence for diminished responsibility?

A

There must be a significant casual link between the mental functioning and the conduct that result in death

54
Q

What is loss of control? what act covers this?

A

It’s considered a special partial defence to murder and argued where an unlawful killing occurs following the D’s loss of control: S.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

55
Q

What are the three stages of the three stage test for loss of control?

A
  1. the D 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
56
Q

What section of the Coroners and Justice Act states that the D must lose control?

A

S.54(1)(b) states that it doesn’t matter whether or not the loss of control was sudden, but control must have been lost.

57
Q

What does S.54(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 state?

A

the loss of control doesn’t need to be sudden

58
Q

What are the three meaning of loss of self-control?

A

-When the D lost their ability to maintain their action in accordance with considered judgement
-that the D lost their normal powers of reasoning
-that the D’s behaviour was very out of character and normally they wouldn’t have acted in this way

59
Q

What isn’t sufficient as a loss of control? Give a case example:

A

Temper or anger or a reaction out of character, or even acting spectacularly out of character are not sufficient. The D must have really really ‘lost it’ or ‘snapped’: R v Jewell

60
Q

What happened in the case of R v Jewell?

A

Jewell shot Pickett but claimed he didn’t intend to kill him but rather sought a gun for protection against P and his associates due to fear of harm. The judge didn’t find sufficient evidence to support the partial defence and there was no other qualifying triggers

61
Q

What section of the Coroners and Justice Act defines what’s considered as a qualifying trigger?

A

S.55:
the fear trigger S.55(3)
things said or done trigger S.55(4)

62
Q

What is meant by the fear trigger? Give a case example:

A

It can be the D’s fear of serious violence from the victim. The D will have to show that they genuinely feared that the V would use serious violence, whether or not that fear was reasonable: R v Ward

63
Q

What happened in the case of R v Ward?

A

Ward was attacked by the V, when the fight was broken up, Ward left and armed himself with a beer bottle and struck the V over the head. The V died as a result of his injuries. The courts found insufficient evidence to prove that Ward really feared the V would use serious violence against him

64
Q

What is meant by the things said or done trigger? Give a case example:

A

Something said or done by the victim that:
-constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character
-caused the D to have a justified sense of being wronged
R v Bowyer

65
Q

What happened in the case of R v Bowyer?

A

Bowyer went to Sullers house to commit a burglary. Suller disturbed the burglary, and during the altercation, he taunted bowyer about his girlfriend being a prostitute. Bowyer lost control and attacked Suller, tying him up with an electric cable. Suller was found dead the following afternoon, Lord chief justice stated that Bowyer, as a burglarer, had no justifiable sense of being wronged. There was no evidence for a loss of control

66
Q

What is meant by ‘a person of their sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance, might have reacted in the same way’ mean? What section of the CJA refers to this?

A

S.54(1)(c): requires that a person of the D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of the D, might have reacyed in the same or similar way.

67
Q

What two cases illustrate S.54(1)(c)?

A

R v Camplin
Zebedee

68
Q

What happened in the case of R v Camplin?

A

A 15 year old killed a man and was charged with murder. At the trial the defence of provocation was raised. The D stated that the deceased raped him and mocked/taunted him for being gay. It was at that point the D lost control and hit him. It was held that a person of their sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance would have reacted the same way

69
Q

What happened in the case of Zebedee?

A

D claimed that he lost control when his 94 year old dad, who was suffering from alzheimers and was doubly incontinent, repeatedly soiled himself. D killed his father and put forward a defence of loss of control. He was convicted of murder and his conviction was later upheld. The courts ruled that a person of their sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance wouldn’t have reacted in the same way

70
Q

What happened in the case of R v Clinton?

A

Clinton killed his wife after she revealed her affair and taunted him about his suicidal thoughts. He claimed he lost control due to her infidelity and other factors. The courts of appeal ruled that while sexual infidelity alone can’t be a qualifying trigger, it can be considered as a part of the overall circumstances if there are other qualifying triggers.

71
Q

What does S.54(4) of the CJA state about the defence and revenge?

A

States that revenge cannot be considered a qualifying trigger for the loss of control defence

Law (20 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions