Fatal Offences Flashcards
1
Q
(Murder) = What is the definition of Murder?
A
- The unlawful killing of a reasonable being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought express or implied
2
Q
(Murder) = Where is murder defined?
A
- Best defined by Sir Edward Coke
3
Q
(Murder) = What are the elements of murder?
A
AR:
1. Unlawful Killing
2. Reasonable Being
3. Under King’s Peace
MR:
1. Intention of express malice or implied malice
4
Q
(Murder) = What is an unlawful killing?
A
- The Unlawful Killing: Must be unlawful
5
Q
(Murder) = What is a reasonable being?
A
- A Reasonable Being: A foetus or someone brain-dead is not classed as a reasonable being
6
Q
(Murder) = What does under kings peace mean?
A
- Under King’s Peace: Cannot be in wartime as this is a lawful killing
7
Q
(Murder) = What is the MR of murder?
A
- Intention to kill or cause GBH:
- Either an intention to kill which is express malice aforethought
- Or, an intention to cause GBH which is implied malice aforethought
8
Q
(Murder) = What are the eight key cases for murder?
A
- Attorney General’s Ref (No3 of 1994)
- R v Malcherek and Steele (1981)
- R v Vickers (1957)
- Moloney (1985)
- Hancock and Shankland (1986)
- Nedrick (1986)
- Woollin (1998)
- Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
9
Q
(Murder) = What must you prove for murder?
A
- Factual Causation =
- But For Test: But for their actions, the result was suffered - Legal Causation =
- Substantial Cause of Death
- Thin Skull Rule: Take the victim as you find them
- Intervening Act: Can break the chain of causation which means there is no responsibility
- Victims Own Act: Was the death due to the their own actions rather than defendant
10
Q
What are the two types of voluntary manslaughter?
A
- Loss of control
- Diminished Responsibility
11
Q
(Loss of Control) = What is the old law?
A
Old Law = Provocation
- Provocation is in the Homicide Act 1957 and was a common law defence
- Defendant must have suffered a loss of control due to provocation
12
Q
(Loss of Control) = What was the two part test for provocation?
A
- Created a Two-Part Test of a Subjective and Objective Test
1. Were they provoked to lose control?
2. Would a reasonable man have lost control?
13
Q
(Loss of Control) = Where was the new law of loss control defined?
A
- Partial defence set out in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
14
Q
(Loss of Control) = What are the summary elements for loss of control?
A
- Must have lost self control
- There must be a qualifying trigger
- A person of the same age and sex may react the same way
15
Q
(Loss of Control) = What does loss of control mean?
A
They must have killed due to a loss of control: It must be a complete loss of control loosing normal powers of reasoning or the ability to control their actions
16
Q
(Loss of Control) = What is a recognised qualifying trigger?
A
- Fears serious violence
- Things said or done
- Fears serious violence and things said or done
17
Q
(Loss of Control) = What does not qualify as a qualifying trigger?
A
- Cannot be regarding sexual infidelity unless there are other qualifying triggers
- Cannot act as revenge
- It cannot be a trigger if they incited violence
18
Q
(Loss of Control) = Can there be a delay?
A
- There can be a delay however the incident must have came from a loss of control
19
Q
(Loss of Control) = How must other people react?
A
- A reasonable man may react in a similar way: A person of the same age and sex would either have a degree of tolerance or would act in the same way
20
Q
(Loss of Control) = What are the eight key cases for loss of control?
A
- R v Ahluwalia (1992)
- R v Gurpinar (2015)
- R v Clinton (2012)
- R v Ibrams and Gregory (1981)
- R v Baillie (1995)
- Camplin (1978)
- R v Thornton (1996)
- R v Jewell (2014)
21
Q
(Diminished Responsibility) = Where was diminished responsibility defined?
A
- Defined in the Homicide Act 1957
22
Q
(Diminished Responsibility) = What are the key elements of diminished responsibility?
A
- Suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning
- Arose from recognized medical condition
- Substantially impairs defendant
- Cannot form a rational judgement, self control or to understand their conduct
23
Q
(Diminished Responsibility) = What is the definition of diminished responsibility?
A
- A person who kills or is party to a killing who will not be convicted of murder if they suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognized medical condition which substantially impairs and is the significant factor to their ability to understand the nature of their conduct, to form rational judgement or to exercise self control which provides an explanation for the killing
24
Q
(Diminished Responsibility) = What is an abnormality of mental functioning?
A
- If they suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognized medical condition
- The recognized medical condition is listed in the ICD of accepted disorders
25
(Diminished Responsibility) = What must the abnormality impair?
The abnormality must substantially impairing the defendants ability to:
- Understand the nature of their own conduct = eg. Delusions or severe learning difficulties
- Form a rational judgement = eg. Paranoia, schizophrenia
- Exercise self control = Cannot control their behaviour
- Must be a significant contributory factor
26
(Diminished Responsibility) = What intoxication be used as a defence?
- Intoxication and using the defence of diminished responsibility = It is not considered an abnormality of the mind on its own so cannot be used as a defence
27
(Diminished Responsibility) = Can intoxication and a pre-existing condition be used as a defence?
- Intoxication and a pre-existing condition = If the defendant has a pre-existing condition and has taken alcohol, the jury must decide whether the defendant would have killed without the drink or drugs, if the abnormality of mental function on its own would have caused the death then it can be used however if alcohol helped the defendant then they cannot use it as a defence
28
(Diminished Responsibility) = Can an addiction to alcohol be used as a defence?
- Intoxication and addiction = Addiction is a recognized medical condition and can be amount to abnormality of mental functioning
29
(Diminished Responsibility) = What are the five key cases of diminished responsibility?
1. R v Byrne (1960)
2. R v Lloyd (1967)
3. R v Golds (2016)
4. R v Dietschmann (2003)
5. R v Wood (2008)
30
What are the two types of involuntary manslaughter?
1. Unlawful Act
2. Gross Negligence
31
(Unlawful Act) = What is the definition of unlawful act manslaughter?
- An unlawful killing when the defendant has committed an unlawful act that is dangerous but does not have the MR for murder and has no intention of committing murder
32
(Unlawful Act) = What are the summary elements of unlawful act manslaughter?
1. Unlawful act
2. Dangerous
3. Substantial cause of death
4. MR of the unlawful act
33
(Unlawful Act) = What is an unlawful act?
- An Unlawful Act = It must be a criminal act, not an omission or a civil act
34
(Unlawful Act) = How must the act be dangerous?
Dangerous = Sober and reasonable people would recognize that there is some risk of harm, it does not have serious harm.
- If the reasonable person can realize there is some harm, it satisfies the dangerous part of the manslaughter. It does not matter if the defendant saw some risk of harm
- The risk of harm refers to physical harm and fear is not enough, however if this fear causes a physical harm such as heart attack then it is enough
35
(Unlawful Act) = What does substantial cause of death mean?
Substantial cause of death = The harm must have been the most substantial and serious cause of death
- It can be a series of unlawful acts as long as one of these unlawful acts was the actual cause of death
36
(Unlawful Act) = What is the MR of unlawful act manslaughter?
- Defendant must have the intention to commit the dangerous and unlawful act which caused the death, it must not be an omission and they committed an intentional act
37
(Unlawful Act) = What are the twelve key cases of unlawful act manslaughter?
1. Lamb (1967)
2. R v Larkin (1943)
3. R v JM and SM
4. R v Goodfellow (1986)
5. R v Dawson (1985)
6. R v Watson (1989)
7. R v Bristow, Dunn and Delay (2013)
8. Carey (2006)
9. AG Ref (No4 of 1980)
10. Kennedy (2007)
11. Newbury and Jones (1976)
12. Le Brun (1991)
38
(Gross Negligence) = What is the definition of gross negligence manslaughter?
- The defendant owes a duty of care to the victim and they have failed to uphold this duty of care, it becomes gross negligence when the breach of the duty of care has caused a death
39
(Gross Negligence) = What are the five elements of gross negligence?
1. There is a duty of care towards the victim from the defendant: Must not create an obvious risk of death therefore carries a duty of care to people around
2. An act or omission in breach of the duty
3. Creates a serious or obvious risk of death = Must show a risk of death and is not enough to show an injury to their health
4. And causes a death = This breach of duty must have been the cause of the death ( Apply Causation )
5. Gross Negligence = Conduct which is so bad it must be criminal
40
(Gross Negligence) = What are four situations where a defendant would have a duty of care?
Defendant will have a duty of care if they have creates a state of affairs which the defendant is aware or should have been aware that someone’s life is at risk which is applied in situations such as:
1. Defendant contributed by supplying ( Selling illegal drugs to someone who later dies can make the dealer liable )
2. The defendant had a relationship such as parent and child
3. The defendant and victim were involved in a dangerous joint enterprise which went wrong
4. The defendant voluntarily assumed a duty of care
41
(Gross Negligence) = What is the MR of gross negligence?
- Judged by their behaviour rather than their state of mind
- There must have been an obvious risk of death
42
(Gross Negligence) = What are the five key cases of gross negligence?
1. R v Adomako (1994)
2. R v Wacker (2002)
3. R v Bateman (1925)
4. R v Misra and Srivastav (2004)
5. R v Dias (2002)
