Fatal Offences Against The Person Flashcards
What was murder defined as by sir Edward coke
The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the king’s peace with malice aforethought expressed or implied
What is the men’s rea behind murder?
Malice aforethought expressed or implied
-Intention to kill or cause GBH
What are two cases for the mens rea of murder?
R v vikers 1957
-d broke into cellar of a local sweet shop and knew that the old lady running the shop was deaf. When the old lady came and saw the defendant, he hit her several times with his fists and kicked her once in the head and she died as a result of her injuries.
-It pointed out that where a defendant intends to inflict GBH and the victim dies, that has always been sufficient in English law to imply malice aforethought
R v Cunningham 1981
-Defendant attacked victim in a pub and attacked him repeatedly with a chair. The victim died from his injuries and a jury convicted defendant of murder having found that he intended really serious harm at the time of the attack.. defendant appealed however House of Lords dismissed the appeal and decided that the law was firm established an intention to cause GBH was sufficient for the mens rea of murder
What is loss of control
S.54 and 55 of coroners and justice act 2009
A partial defence to murder
Discretionary life sentence
The defence was first introduced in the Homicide Act 1957 as a way to avoid the death penalty for murder. After the death penalty was abolished in 1965, the defence remained and now is a way to avoid the mandatory life sentence. The defence was widely criticised.
For loss of control to be successful what has to be shown
- D lost self control which resulted in him killing V
- Loss of control must be due to 1/3 qualifying triggers:
A- defendant fears serious violence
B-things have been said or done which amount to circumstances of an extremely grave character and cause the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
C- a combination of the first two triggers - A person of d’s age, sex and in same circumstances with a normal level of tolerance would have acted in a similar way
Explain the first qualifying trigger and give a case
- D’s acts/omissions resulted from the defendant’s loss of control
D needs to lose control at the time that their actions (or lack of action)
caused the death.
R v Jewell 2014:
D killed his former friend by shooting him. prosecution alleged that d had deliberately murdered friend. However
D argued that friend had threatened him, which caused him to lose control and act out of fear, but he contended that he was not able to recollect the precise details of the killing due to his emotional state.
LP-The defendant’s actions must demonstrate that the killing was an impulsive and unplanned response to a trigger (such as provocation or fear of violence), not a considered or planned act.
In this case, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence of a true loss of self-control because the defendant appeared to have acted with some degree of planning and calculation, which negated the defense. Thus, the conviction for murder was upheld.
How can there be a delay between the trigger and LoC and give 4 cases
Under Duffy 1949- loss of control must be sudden and temporary
S.54- only necessary to prove loss of control, does not need to be sudden and temporary and sudden anymore. - change made to accommodate victims of years of domestic abuse
Ahluwalia 1992- d poured petrol over her husband while he was sleeping n set him on fire due to the domestic abuse and infidelity she suffered by him
Held- old defence of prov was not allowed but later substituted for diminished responsibility.
Thornton 1996- d suffered ongoing abuse and violence from husband, he kicked her out. When she returned later he called her a whore and threatened to kill her if she didn’t leave. She sharpened a knife and stabbed him in the stomach, he died.
Held- prov needs to be considered in context of all incidents leading up to killing and that the last straw could trigger final LOC
BUT
BAILLIE 1995- the longer the delay or gap between incident and killing, the less likely the defence will be available.
R v Clinton (2012) - the judge said “in reality, the greater the level of deliberation, the less likely that the killing followed a true loss of self-control”.
second qualifying trigger
Anger - things said or done (or both) which
a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
R v hatter 2013
D accused of murdering his girlfriend. She broke up with him, he became upset, and the situation escalated. On the day of the killing, d argued with v and ultimately killed her. He claimed he had been deeply upset by her rejection and that this triggered a loss of self-control, which led him to kill her.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Hatter was not entitled to rely on the defense of loss of self-control. The court emphasized that the “things said or done” which provoke a loss of self-control must be grave and justifiable. In this case, the Court found that Poole’s ending of the relationship and any alleged taunting were not sufficiently serious to trigger a loss of self-control in a reasonable person. The court also noted that the loss of self-control defense requires the triggering conduct to be such that it could lead a person of ordinary temperament to lose control and kill, which was not the case here.
R v Bowyer (2013)
D and v were in a rs with a prostitute. D broke into v’s house to burgle it and he was disturbed by v so they had a fight where v was tied up and v died as a result of the injuries
D claimed v reacted violently to his presence, revealed his girlfriend was a prostitute, he was her pimp and she was his number one earner.
The actions of the victim were reasonable and could not objectively provide D with a basis for claiming they justifiably felt seriously wronged.
Give a case for loss of control sexual infidelity
R v Clinton (2012)
D and his wife had a trial separation, defendant was also suffering from clinical depression. She left him with the children and moved into her parent’s home. Two weeks later she revealed to him that she was having an affair. D accessed her Facebook account and found sexually explicit messages and photographs of his wife and her lover. He also stole and wrecked her car. When wife returned house to collect some stuff. D was heavily intoxicated and killed her by repeatedly beating her on the head with a wooden baton and strangled her with a belt. He then took photos of her naked body in various poses and texted them to her new lover. D said that he lost his control at the meeting due to three factors:
1. She had told him that she had had sexual relations with five men and was describing in graphic detail the acts they had performed.
2. She had laughed and taunted him about a suicide website that he had been looking at on his computer.
3. She had told him she no longer wanted the children.
The trial judge held that the defence of loss of control was not available to the defendant because the words relating to infidelity should be disregarded as a qualifying trigger and the remaining factors alone were not of an extremely grave character nor would they cause the appellant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged. The jury found D guilty of murder. He appealed on the basis that the jury were prevented from considering the loss of control defence.
Give a case for incitement, loss of control
R v Dawes 2013
-d went to estranged wife’s house, found her sleeping with another man. D woke man up and started hitting him with bottle, v grabbed it and attacked d. D grabbed knife from kitchen and stabbed him in neck. D appealed murder conviction saying loc should’ve been available to him
- appeal dismissed: there was insufficient evidence that d incited the killing however there was no evidence that he lost control.
Objective test for LOC and 4 cases
The third and final element of LoC is to consider whether a person of the same age and sex of D, with normal tolerance and self-restraint would have reacted in a similar way to D in the same circumstance.
Camplin (1978) - D, a 15 year old boy, killed a man that sexually assaulted him.
Held: the age and sex of D should be taken into consideration when considering this defence.
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 confirms that all of D’s circumstances can be taken into account, apart from anything affecting his capacity for tolerance and self-restraint.
SO -
The jury can consider D’s history of abuse (Ahluwalia/Thornton), but they cannot consider D’ bad temper and proneness to violence (Mohammed)
Mohammed (2005) - D was known for being violent and having a bad temper. After finding his daughter in her bedroom with her boyfriend, he grabbed a knife and stabbed her to death (the boyfriend fled).
Held: bad temper is irrelevant in considering what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances. Guilty of murder.
This case would have the same decision under the new law for LoC.
Holley (2005) - D was a depressed alcoholic who killed his partner with an axe after finding out that she had an affair.
Held: alcoholism and depression are irrelevant characteristics for the objective test as they affect capacity for tolerance.
Aslemash [2013] - The jury is to ignore intoxication when applying the reasonableness test.
What is diminished responsibility
Set out in s.2 homicide act 1957 amended by section 52 of coroners and justice act 2009
Partial defence to murder
4 elements which must all be present for the defence to apply:
1. The defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental function which;
2. Arose from a recognised medical condition
3. That substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to; a) understand the nature of D’s conduct; b) form a rational judgement or; c) exercise self-control and;
4. Provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts/omissions in doing or being party to the killing
Give a case for abnormality of mental functioning
R v Byrne (1960) - D strangled a woman and then mutilated her body. Medical evidence supported that d was a sexual psychopath, and this caused an abnormality of mind at the time of the killing meaning ne couldn’t control his perverted sexual desires. The argument presented was that he acted under ar irresistible impulse. The original trial judge directed the jury that diminished responsibility was not relevant in this case. D appealed.
Outcome: The defence of DR was accepted, and D was guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
Legal principle - The Court of Appeal held that the term abnormality of mind covered all aspects of the mind including the ability to control physical acts as well as the ability to make rational decisions. It also said abnormality of mental functioning means “a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal”.
Give a case from recognised mental condition
R v Dowds (2012)
D voluntarily was intoxicated (he was not an alcoholic) and could not remember the 60 knife wounds to the victim who died. D claimed DR but the judge didn’t allow the jury to consider it.
Legal principle: Voluntary intoxication, not linked to alcoholism isn’t a recognised
Case for substantial impairment
R v Conroy (2017) - D had ASD and lived in a special home as did the victim.
D injured V while trying to drag her into his room as he wanted to have sex with her. She was found unconscious and died from her injuries. It was accepted that D’s ASD caused an abnormality, but the question of substantial impairment was raised.
D was found guilty.
Legal principle - D’s judgement was not substantially impaired. He knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway. The attack was premeditated and rational.
Give 2 cases of diminished responsibility
R v Wood (2008)
D was a diagnosed alcoholic who drank on average 4 to 5 litres of strong cider daily.
After having drunk 2-3 litres of cider, several cans of lager, brandy and vodka, he stayed at the victim’s home. During the night, he woke up and found the victim trying to perform unwanted oral sex on him. He lost his self-control and killed the victim, by striking him 37 times with a meat cleaver.
Legal principle: Where brain damage has occurred as a consequence or alcoholism the jury can conclude an abnormality of the mind. When there is no brain damage the defence will still be available, however, the jury will need to separate drinking from alcoholism and voluntary intoxication.
R v Dietschmann (2003)
D was in a relationship with his aunt. She was much older than him and a drug addict. D went to prison for an unconnected oftence and his aunt wrote to him every day and visitied regularly. She died while D was still in prison. D became suicidal and attempted to take his own life. On his release from prison a month later he began drank heavily. Two weeks later he killed V in a violent attack thiling the de aa sufferint. The argument started ahter i accused of bore adis his atis (rde last ever gift his aunt gave him).
Legal principle: In situation of drunkenness and an acting under diminished responsibility the responsibility her his is “dests othes he falled to atisty you of tysts tais ales are guire the tal
. This doesn’t require the D tc
prove he would have killed without the drink but instead that abnormality was a significant factor in the killing.
This case went to appeal, and a retrial was ordered. At crown court a misdirection was given to the jury that they must decide that D would have committed the crime without the drink to apply DR.
What is involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing where the defendant does not have the intention, either direct or oblique, to kill or cause grievous bodily harm
What is unlawful act manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter (sometimes called constructive manslaughter) happens when D commits an unlawful and dangerous act (separate criminal offence) that results in the death of the victim.
What are the 4 elements of UAM
- D commits an unlawful act
- The unlawful act is dangerous
unlawful act - The unlawful act caused the death of the victim
- D had the mens rea for the initial
4 cases for the first element of UAM
R v Lamb (1967)
D while joking around with his best friend, shot and killed him. D claimed it was a genuine accident. Neither he nor the victim thought there was a bullet in the next chamber.
Legal principle: to prove unlawful act manslaughter there needs to be an initial unlawful act where the AR and MR of that crime coincide. This didn’t happen in this case as there was no assault.
R v Lowe (1973)
D’s child died from neglect. The trial judge told the jury that if they determined that the child was neglected - this was a criminal act and that they therefore must be convict of manslaughter. Appeal allowed
Legal principle: only acts (not omissions) constitute an unlawful act for the purposes of unlawful manslaughter
R v Farnon and Ellis (2015)
Two defendants (14 and 16) set a derelict building on fire. The fire killed a homeless man that was squatting there.
Both boys (14 and 16) were both guilty of manslaughter.
Legal principle: unlawful acts aren’t limited to offences against the person. Other unlawful offences can apply (arson, in this case).
Andrews v DPP (1937)
D hit a pedestrian whilst overtaking another vehicle (was driving over the speed limit). Drove off, didn’t call 999. Pedestrian died.
Guilty of manslaughter
Legal principle: only criminal acts constitute an unlawful act for the purposes of unlawful manslaughter
3 cases for element 2 UAM
R v Church (1965)
D and v had sex. V slapped d as he was unable to satisfy her. In response, d violently attacked her and knocked her unconscious d, unable to wake her, thought she was dead so threw her body in a river. Postmortem showed she died of drowning.
D was found guilty of manslaughter.
Legal principle - dangerous act means “the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the not serious harm”.
Give 2 cases for the mens Rea of UAM
R v Mitchell (1983)
The defendant tried to jump the queue at a Post Office. An elderly man took issue with this and challenged him. The defendant pushed him (intended victim). The man fell back onto others in the queue including an elderly lady (unintended victim) who fell and broke her leg. She later died. The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter.
Legal principle: There was is requirement that the unlawful act be directed at the intended victim. Transfer of malice.
DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)
Two detendants threw part of a paving stone oft a bridge as a train passec oy. The paving stone part went through a window and killed the train guard.
Defendants claimed they couldn’t foresee that their actions would have facilitated harm to the train guard.
Guilty
Legal precedent: MR to the original crime is what is relevant here. House of Lords also confirmed that the ‘dangerous test’ was objective as set out in R v Church.
