Fatal Offences Murder (ACTIVITY 1) Flashcards
What Type of Offence is Murder ?
Common Law Homicide Offence
What does a Common Law Homicide Mean ?
That the offence has not been defined by any act of parliament
What is the accepted definition of Murder ?
The unlawful killing of a reasonable person under the King’s peace with malice aforethought express or implied.
What are the four elements of the Actus Rea of Murder ?
- The defendant killed
- The killing was unlawful - no defence
- The killing was of a reasonable creature in being (human being)
- The killing took place under the the King’s Peace
What are the three elements that MUST be adressed when apllying the law of murder (AO2) to a given scenario (AO1) ?
- Actus reus of murder + relevant case law
- Causation - both factual and legal causation + relevant case law
- Mens rea of murder- difference between direct and oblique intention and the meaning of indirect intention + relevant case law
What should you do ?
When applying The Actus Reus , If the defendant killed ?
Find out wether The killing was a voluntary positive act or an omission
What is a positive act
A positive act is straightforward - stabbed a person, shot a person
killing must result from something the person actively did, like stabbin
What is a Omission
is where the defendant did not do something they were obliged to do
This means the killing can also result from failing to do something that
What should you do ?
When applying The Actus Reus in regards to wether the killing was unlawful
you just agree or disagree wether the defendant was liable for murder
What should you do ?
When applying The Actus Reus of wether The killing was of a reasonable human being.
for murder, a living person must be killed. A defendant cannot be charged with murder in respect of the killing of a foetus. The child has to have an ‘existence independent of the mother’ for it to be considered a ‘creature of being’ or ‘human being’.
What should you do ?
When applying The Actus Reus of Kings Peace
the killing must not be the killing of an enemy in the course of war as it is not murder - R v Blackman.
When you are Addressing causation within murder you should
you should address both factual and legal causation
What mustn’t you do when writing about crimina causation
Mustn’t Use Civil Law Cases
They must use Criminal Cases Instead (R v White or R v Pagget)
Causation in muder is often useded as a what in muder scenarios
discriminator
What test do we use for legal causation
Proximate Cause
This assesses whether it is fair to hold the defendant legally responsible for the death, considering factors like foreseeability and directness of the link between the action and the death.
What test do we use for factual Causation
But for Test
This test asks whether the death would have occurred “but for” the defendant’s actions.
What is the defintion of discriminator in regards to Causation within murder
refers to a factor or element that distinguishes the particular case of killing from other types of killings, typically affecting the classification and severity of the offense.
When addressing causation within murder what cases do we refer to for factual causation
R v White
R v Pagett
When addressing causation within murder what cases do we refer to for Legal causation
R v Kimsey
R v Smith
What is established in R v Kimsey
de minimis rule
What conditions must be met before applying the rule stablished in R v Kimsey (de minimis rule)
The defendant’s action must be more than a minimal cause of the death (not trivial)
Example: If the defendant sets fire to a building knowing people are inside and someone dies, the causation is clear because the death is a foreseeable and direct result of the act.
What conditions must be met before referring to in R v Smith
D’s conduct must be more than minimal it also needs to be a substantial cause of the death.
The case should involve multiple contributing factors to the victim’s death, where the defendant’s actions are not the sole cause.
What are the three case facts of R v Smith
Incident: Private Albert Patrick Smith, a soldier, stabbed another soldier during a fight at a military barracks.
Medical Treatment: The injured soldier was given medical treatment, but it was grossly negligent. The medical staff failed to recognize the severity of the injury and provided inappropriate care.
Death: Despite the medical treatment, the injured soldier died.
What was the legal issue in R v Smith
The key legal issue in R v Smith was whether Smith could be held liable for murder despite the negligent medical treatment that the victim received after the stabbing. The question was whether the chain of causation was broken by the poor medical care.
What was the courts decision in R V Smith
The court held that Smith was guilty of murder. The principle established was that if at the time of death the original wound is still an “operating and substantial cause,” then the death can be attributed to the defendant, even if other factors (such as medical negligence) contributed to the death. The negligent medical treatment did not break the chain of causation because the original stabbing was still a significant and operating cause of death.
What was the Key Principle in R v Smith
Causation: The original injury inflicted by the defendant need only be a substantial and operating cause of death. Even if the medical treatment was negligent, it did not absolve Smith of liability as long as the wound he inflicted was still a significant cause of the death.
What was the significance of R v Smith
R v Smith (1959) is a critical case in criminal law for establishing that defendants can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if subsequent medical treatment is negligent, provided that the original act remains a substantial cause of the death.
What are the two case facts of R v Kimsey
Tracy Kimsey and her friend were involved in a high-speed car chase.
Kimsey lost control of her vehicle, which resulted in a fatal collision that killed her friend.
What was the legal issue in R v Kimsey
The central issue was whether Kimsey’s actions could be said to have caused the death of her friend, considering the legal principles of causation.
What was the courts decision in R V Kimsey
The court held that for Kimsey to be guilty, her actions did not need to be the principal or a substantial cause of death, but rather there must be more than a slight or trifling link.
The judge directed the jury that it was sufficient if they were sure that Kimsey’s driving was a cause of the death in the sense that it was more than a minimal contribution to the death.
What was the Key Principle in R v Kimsey
The case clarified the standard for causation in criminal law, particularly in cases involving multiple contributing factors.
It established that the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s actions were more than a minimal cause of the victim’s death.
What was the significance of R v Kimsey
R v Kimsey is frequently cited in subsequent cases to explain the concept of legal causation.
It provides a clear threshold for juries to apply when determining whether a defendant’s conduct can be said to have caused a particular outcome, even when other factors are also involved.
What are the three case facts of R v White
The defendant, Harold White, attempted to kill his mother by poisoning her drink with potassium cyanide.
His mother drank the poison but died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect.
Medical evidence showed that the heart attack was not caused by the poison.
What was the legal issue in R v White
The primary legal issue in R v White was whether White could be held liable for the murder of his mother, despite the poison not being the direct cause of her death.
What was the courts decision in R v White
The court held that White could not be convicted of murder because his act of poisoning was not the direct cause of his mother’s death. Instead, she died of a heart attack unrelated to the poison.
White was, however, found guilty of attempted murder, as he had the intent to kill and took a substantial step towards committing the crime.
What was the Key Principle in R v White
Factual Causation: The “but for” test is applied. “But for” the defendant’s actions, would the result (the victim’s death) have occurred? In this case, the answer was yes, the mother would have died anyway due to the heart attack.
What was the significance of R v White
Establishment of Causation Principle: R v White is a seminal case that illustrates the importance of causation in criminal law. For a defendant to be liable for murder, there must be a direct causal link between their actions and the victim’s death.
Application to Other Cases: The principles established in this case are applied in subsequent cases to determine criminal liability where causation is in question.
`
What are the two case facts of R v Pagett
Incident: In 1980, David Pagett used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield while he was involved in a standoff with the police. He was trying to evade arrest by armed officers.
Consequence: During the confrontation, Pagett fired at the police, and the officers returned fire in self-defense. One of the officers’ shots hit and killed Pagett’s girlfriend.
What was the legal issue in R v Pagett
Causation: The central issue was whether Pagett could be held legally responsible for the death of his girlfriend, given that the fatal shot was fired by a police officer.
What was the courts decision in R v Pagett
Conviction: Pagett was convicted of manslaughter.
Reasoning: The court held that Pagett’s actions in using his girlfriend as a human shield were the direct cause of her death. His conduct set off the chain of events that led to her being shot.
What was the Key Principle in R v Pagett
The court applied the principle of causation, determining that Pagett’s actions were a substantial and operative cause of the death.
Even though the police officer fired the fatal shot, it was considered a foreseeable response to Pagett’s use of his girlfriend as a shield.
What was the significance of R v Pagett
The concept of novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) was addressed. The court ruled that the police officer’s actions did not break the chain of causation initiated by Pagett’s conduct.
The actions of the police were seen as a reasonable and lawful response to the threat posed by Pagett.
What is the novus actus interveniens
refers to an intervening act or event which breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s original act and the ultimate harm or damage.
What are the two main issues that can be considered intervening acts
Medical treatment/intervention
Victim’s own actions
what is medical treatment/ intervention in relation to the intervening act
Normal Medical Treatment: If the treatment given by doctors is reasonable and expected, even if not perfect, the person who caused the initial injury (like stabbing someone) is still responsible for the outcome.
Extremely Bad Treatment: If the treatment is exceptionally bad and the primary cause of harm (like giving a patient a medicine they are known to be allergic to), it can break the chain. The doctors’ actions then become the main reason for the harm or death.
