Fatal Offences against the Person

Question 1

Define Murder

Answer 1

The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the [King’s] peace with malice aforethought, express or implied ~ Lord Coke

It is a common law offence (R v Vickers)

Minimum sentence - life imprisonment

Question 2

What are the actus reus requirements for murder

Answer 2

Unlawful killing
Reasonable person n being
Under the King’s peace
Factual causation
Legal causation
novus actus interveniens
thin skull rule

Question 3

What are the mens rea elements for murder

Answer 3

Express malice (intention to kill)
Implied Malice (Cause GBH)
Definition of intention
If there was any oblique intent to discuss
If there was any virtual certainty of death to discuss
transferred malice

Question 4

Cases for reasonable person in being

Answer 4

Malcherek and Steel - Victim was brain dead, so not murder, as they were not a reasonable person in being

AG - Ref No.3 1994 - A fetus is not considered a person in being, therefore, you cannot be found guilty of ‘murdering’ a fetus.

Question 5

Factual Causation cases?

Answer 5

R v Pagett:
Defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield; she was killed.

R v White
Defendant tried to poison his mother but she died of a heart attack before he could commit AR; not murder but attempted murder instead

Question 6

Legal causation cases?

Answer 6

‘Slight, trifling link’ - Kimsey

‘The act must be more than minimal (Cato), but needn’t be substantial (Kimsey)’

Question 7

Thin skull rule case?

Answer 7

R v Blaue - a Jehovah’s Witness that refused blood transfusion due to religious reasons, and thus died from the stabbing wounds.

Question 8

novus actus interveniens cases?

Answer 8

Roberts (own actions = broke)

Jordan (palpably wrong treatment = broke)

Smith (poor treatment = didn’t break)

Question 9

Cases for mens rea for murder?

Answer 9

express malice: intention to kill

implied malice: intention to cause GBH (R v Vickers) - just because the defendant did not intend to kill, he did intend to cause GBH, thus fulfils the mens rea

Question 10

Define intention using case law

Answer 10

Mohan - ‘a decision to bring about a consequence’

Question 11

cases of oblique intent?

Answer 11

Hancock and Shankland - throwing boulders of does have the risk of killing someone, so even if they did not intend it, it is a reasonable predicted outcome

Question 12

What is the virtual certainty of death/serious injury? Any cases to support?

Answer 12

If D had the virtual certainty that if he commit this act, V would die or sustain serious injury. Did the defendant forsee death? In this case, the jury is advised to find D guilty but is not compulsory to do so.

Mathews and Alleyne (did foresee)
Parmenter (did not foresee)

Question 13

cases for transferred malice?

Answer 13

Latimer - a transferred mens rea from the intended victim to the unintended victim. The defendant is still guilty of the injuries that the unintended victim sustained.

Question 14

What is a partial defence, and what are the two partial defences to murder?

Answer 14

It is a defence that the defendant is allowed to attempt to claim. should they be successful, their sentence would be reduced, not wiped completely, hence it being partial.

The two partial defences for murder are:
Loss of Control
Diminished Responsibility

Question 15

Where does diminished responsibility come under?

Answer 15

diminished responsibility under the Homicide Act 1957, amended under s52 of the Coroners Justice Act 2009

The burden of proof falls on the defence to try and prove that Defendant fulfils the requirement that they suffered from diminished responsibility

Question 16

What does s52 diminished responsibility say?

Answer 16

the Defendant is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning, due to a recognised medical condition, which substantially impairs the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, or exercise self-control which provides as explanation for the Defendant’s acts or omissions.

Question 17

What is an abnormality of mental functioning? State a case.

Answer 17

It is thinking that a reasonable person would regard as abnormal, as seen in:
R v Byrne - a sexual psychopath (although in this case, even though he was granted the defence, he was still sentenced to life, due to being a danger to the public)

Question 18

What is a recognised medical condition? State a case.

Answer 18

Anything found in the World Health Organisations international classifications of diseases.

Paranoia - Martin
Psychotic disorder - Byrne
Clinical depression - Gittens
Battered wife syndrome - Ahluwalia
Retarded Development - R v Egan
Sexual psychopathy - Byrne
Autism spectrum disorder - R v Conroy
Alcohol dependency syndrome - R v Wood

HOWEVER, in R v Dowds:
just because a recognised medical condition appears in the list doesn’t mean its capable of being relied upon to show an abnormality of mental functioning.

Question 19

Define substantially impairing

Answer 19

In Lloyd: ‘not meaning total, nor meaning trivial or minimal’
It is for the jury to decide if D’s mental responsibility is impaired and if so whether is it substantially impaired.

In Golds: the judge should only define substantially when there is a risk that the jury will not understand the meaning of the word.
“ ‘Impairment’ must be more than merely trivial” and it means something important of weighty.

Question 20

State the 3 things that must be substantially impaired

Answer 20

Understand the nature of his conduct

Form a rational judgement

Exercise self-control