Fatal Offences

Question 1

Murder definition

Answer 1

Sir edward coke

The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the king/queens peace with malice aforethought, express or implied

Question 2

AR unlawful killing

Answer 2

Act or an omission

Question 3

Omissions

Answer 3

Gibbins v proctor- duty arising from relationship

Pittwood- contractual duty

Miller-duty following creation of a dangerous situation

Stone v dobbinson- duty if taken on voluntarily

Dytham- duty arising from public position

Question 4

Reasonable person in being

Answer 4

When a person is classes as a human being

Foetus not a human being

Malcherek and steel- doctors permitted to switch off life-support machines are people deemed to be brain-dead

Question 5

Under the queens peace

Answer 5

Killing in peacetime

Killing of enemy at war is not murder

Question 6

Factual causation

Answer 6

White- D did not cause death as V would’ve died regardless of his actions

Pagett- factual causation found as V would not have died but for Ds actions

Question 7

Legal causation

Answer 7

The chain of causation must remain unbroken, the result must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence the defendants act

Smith- operating and substantial cause

D can be guilty even if he only contributes to his death:

Cato- Defendants actions need not to have been the only cause of death but must be more than a minimal cause

Benge- defendants action need not to be the sole cause but more than minimal

Question 8

NAI BY 3RD PARTY

Answer 8

chain of causation broken by new and independent event which is sufficiently different and serious

Jordan- “palpably wrong”

Malcherek and steel- switching off life support machines does not break chain of causation

Question 9

NAI BY V

Answer 9

Can break chain of causation if it is not foreseeable or reasonable

Roberts- victims actions were the reasonably foreseeable consequence of what defendant was doing and therefore didn’t break the chain of causation

Williams- victims actions were a NAI by V as it was voluntary and unreasonable

Question 10

Thin skull rule

Answer 10

Blaue- must take the victims as you find them- vs injuries are made more serious by physical or mental condition

Question 11

Murder MR

Answer 11

Sir edward coke- malice aforethought express or implied”

Direct express- aim to kill
Oblique express- death is a virtual certainty and d knows
Direct implied- aim is GBH
Oblique implied- GBH is virtual certainty and d knows

Question 12

Express and implied malice

Answer 12

Express malice- intention to kill

Implied malice- intention to cause GBH
Vickers- intention to inflict GBH resulting in death of victim is enough to imply the necessary intention for murder

MR for murder can be express or implied

Question 13

Direct and oblique intent

Answer 13

Direct intent- aim/purpose/motive (mohan)

Oblique intent-defendants I miss something different to the consequence but defendant knows the consequences of his actions is virtually certain (woolin)

D must foresee that he would cause death or serious injury

Question 14

Transferred malice

Answer 14

Defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim

Latimer- defendant guilty of assault on victim even though he was aiming for someone else and had not meant to hit her

Mitchell- transferred malice also accepted

Question 15

Loss of control

Answer 15

S.54 coroners and justice act 2009

1. D’d act/ omissions resulted from the defendants loss of self-control
2. D lost control due to a qualifying trigger
3. A person of d’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of d might have reacted in the same or a similar way.

Question 16

1. Resulted from d’s loss of self control

Answer 16

1. D must lose control
   Actions and emotions
2. The killing must result from d’s loss of control
   Time delay between loss of control and killing
   S.54(2) - loss of control doesn’t need to be sudden. Can be a time delay between qualifying trigger and the reaction of d in killing the victim
   Ballie- d must prove he remained out of control throughout the relevant period where there is a time gap.

Question 17

2. Qualifying trigger

Answer 17

A) fear of serious violence
B) things done or said which constituted circumstances of grave character and also caused s to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 18

2a) fear of serious violence from v

Answer 18

Must be genuine fear

Doesnt need to be reasonable and there does not need to be any actual violence

Question 19

2b) things done or said ….

Answer 19

Anger trigger

1. What were the things done or said
2. Did these constitute circumstances of a grave character. (Serious )
3. Did d have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Question 20

Restrictions for loss of control

Answer 20

Restrictions of qualifying triggers

S.55

Incitement- d taunts v in order to provoke the victim into saying /doing something that might justify d killing him.

Sexual infidelity- clinton- where sexual infidelity is not the only trigger, there is not a total exclusion but can be put to the jury

Considered desire for revenge- ibrams and gregory - defence will not work where d is motivated by a desire for revenge.

Question 21

3) a person of d’s age and sex ….

Answer 21

A) person of d’s age and sex
Camplin- age and sex of d may be relevant

B) with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint
Mohammed - if d is bad tempered and prone to violence this must be disregarded
Holley- alcholism and depression must be disregarded

C) in the circumstances of d
What made him lose control- understand d’s circumstances

Question 22

Diminished responsibility definition

Answer 22

S.2 homicide act 1957 as amended by s.52 coroners justice act 2009.

1. D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
2. Arose from a recognised medical condition
3. Substantially impaired D’s ability
4. Provides an explanation for d’s acts or omissions

Question 23

1. Abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 23

Byrne- A state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal

Symptoms- how d is thinking/feeling/ behaving

Question 24

2. Arising from a recognised medical condition

Answer 24

Coroners justice act 2009- needs to be a recorgnised condition in world health organisation or American psychiatric Association

Byrne- psychotic disorders

Question 25

3. Substantially impairs …

Answer 25

Must substantially impaired d’s ability to do one of the following: understand the nature of his conduct or form a rational judgement or exercise self-control

Egan- substantial impairment doesn’t need to be total impairment but must be more than trivial

Golds- must be significant or appreciable

Question 26

4. Abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for the killing

Answer 26

Causation- defence will fail if d would have killed anyway

Intoxication- gittens- disregard the effect of intoxication and consider whether abnormality alone is sufficient

Alcohol dependancy syndrome- wood- effects of the alcohol consumed because of the addiction is in voluntary drinking but any more then you would on a normal day is voluntary intoxication so defence won’t work

Question 27

UA manslaughter

Answer 27

Where D causes the victims death whilst carrying out a criminal act which is deemed to be dangerous

Question 28

The unlawful act

Answer 28

Must be a criminal offence

Lamb- must be a criminal offence

Question 29

Dangerous act

Answer 29

Church- all sober and reasonable people would recognise it would subject to the other person to the risk of some harm

Mitchell- just act does not made to be aimed at victim

R v JM and SM- only need to see the risk of some harm not necessarily the particular harm suffered.

Dawson- need to risk of some harm not just fear

Question 30

Causation

Answer 30

Shohid - Not necessary That the unlawful act is the only cause

Question 31

Mens rea

Answer 31

Need mens rea for the unlawful act

Newbury and jones- D does not need to foresee that his act might cause harm to another or be aware that his act was unlawful or intend the risk of injury