Fatal Offences Flashcards
Murder definition
Sir edward coke
The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the king/queens peace with malice aforethought, express or implied
AR unlawful killing
Act or an omission
Omissions
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
Reasonable person in being
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
Under the queens peace
Killing in peacetime
Killing of enemy at war is not murder
Factual causation
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
Legal causation
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
NAI BY 3RD PARTY
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
NAI BY V
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
Thin skull rule
Blaue- must take the victims as you find them- vs injuries are made more serious by physical or mental condition
Murder MR
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
Express and implied malice
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
Direct and oblique intent
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
Transferred malice
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
Loss of control
S.54 coroners and justice act 2009
- D’d act/ omissions resulted from the defendants loss of self-control
- D lost control due to a qualifying trigger
- 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.
- Resulted from d’s loss of self control
- D must lose control
Actions and emotions - 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.
- Qualifying trigger
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
2a) fear of serious violence from v
Must be genuine fear
Doesnt need to be reasonable and there does not need to be any actual violence
2b) things done or said ….
Anger trigger
- What were the things done or said
- Did these constitute circumstances of a grave character. (Serious )
- Did d have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Restrictions for loss of control
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.
3) a person of d’s age and sex ….
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
Diminished responsibility definition
S.2 homicide act 1957 as amended by s.52 coroners justice act 2009.
- D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
- Arose from a recognised medical condition
- Substantially impaired D’s ability
- Provides an explanation for d’s acts or omissions
- Abnormality of mental functioning
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
- Arising from a recognised medical condition
Coroners justice act 2009- needs to be a recorgnised condition in world health organisation or American psychiatric Association
Byrne- psychotic disorders
- Substantially impairs …
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
- Abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for the killing
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
UA manslaughter
Where D causes the victims death whilst carrying out a criminal act which is deemed to be dangerous
The unlawful act
Must be a criminal offence
Lamb- must be a criminal offence
Dangerous act
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
Causation
Shohid - Not necessary That the unlawful act is the only cause
Mens rea
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
