Fatal offences + Manslaughter Flashcards
What is Murder?
Murder is a common law offence, with mandatory life sentence (with tariffs).
Actus Reus of Murder
- Causing:
Rules of causation apply here - Unlawful death:
All death will be considered unlawful unless it is a doctor withdrawing treatment (Airedale NHS Trust v Bland)
Or if a valid defence applies - Necessity (Re A) - Of a human being;
A feotus is not considered a human being (AG’s Ref 3 of 94)
Life ends at brain stem death (R v Malcherek)
Brain damage are still humans (Inglis) - Under the kings Peace:
Refers to death outside of wartime - although a solider who kills outside of battle is still guilty. (R v Clegg)
Mens Rea of murder
-Malice Aforethought,
= Intention to kill –> express malice
= Intention to commit GBH –> Implied malice (R v Vickers/ R v Cunningham)
- Intention can be:
Direct intention (R v Mohan - main aim)
Oblique/Indirect Intention - Virtually certain consequence (R v Nedrick)
What is looked at in Voluntary Manslaughter? - Defence is diminished responsibility!
V Manslaughter is under the Homicide Act 1957, s.2
V Manslaughter is a special defence to murder - D charged with murder, reduced to manslaughter if successful.
Burden of proof is on the defence on the balance of probabilities (R v Wilcocks)
Medical evidence is required for a defence to succeed (R v Golds)
What are the first two requirements for diminished responsibility?
1) Abnormality of mental functioning - R v Byrne, D is in a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.
2) Recognised medical condition - This can be physical and psychological recognised by world health organisations. ( R v Dowds):
THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE MUST SHOW THAT THE CONDITION CAUSED THE ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FUNCTIONING.
Examples for Recognised medical conditions
R v Byrne-Irresistible impulses
R V Alhuwalia - Battered wives syndrome
R v Wood – Alcohol Dependency Syndrome
R v Campbell - Epilepsy and Frontal lobe damage
R v Smith - Pre-menstrual tension
R v Reynolds - Post natal depression
R v Gittens - Depression and alcoholism
R v Martin - paranoid personality disorder
Last two requirements for diminished responsibility.
- Substantially Impairs:
Jury decides if the impairment was substantial enough to lead D to Kill (R v Golds)
Needs to be more than trivial impairment (R v Lloyd)
Condition must imair D from:
(a) To understand the nature of his conduct
(b) To form a rational judgement
(c) To exercise self-control (Byrne)
- Provides an explanation:
There must be a causal link between D’s abnormality of mental functioning and killing
If medical condition made no difference to their behaviour then the defence fails.
Brennan - If 2 doctors agree on RMC explaining actions, murder must be withdrawn from the jury.
What are the two requirements for Diminished Responsibility and Intoxication?
1 - General rule; voluntary intoxication alone is not enough for the defence to work (R v Dowds)
2 - However it can be considered if:
- D has brain damage as a result of alcohol misuse or alcohol dependency
- D is intoxicated involuntarily, through spiking or alcohol dependency
- D was was intoxicated and has existing medical condition, must be the cause of the killing (R v Dietschmann)
What is Loss of control?
Loss of control is defined under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.54.
Is a special defence to murder and if successful charge will be dropped to manslaughter.
Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defence does not apply beyond reasonable doubt.
What are the 3 requirements for Loss of Control?
1 - A loss of self control:
Jury decides this and it does not have to be a sudden loss (s.54(2)) AND needs to be more than a partial loss of control (R v Jewell)
2 - Caused by a qualifying trigger:
- Serious fear of violence (R v Ward)
- Extremely grave character (S.55(4))
- D being seriously wronged (R v Hatter)
3 - A person of D’s same sex and age with normal self restraint and in same circumstances of D might have reacted the same as D (OBJECTIVE ELEMENT)
- MENTAL ILLNESS CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT HERE!! (R v Wilcocks)
What is Unlawful Act Manslaughter?
Unlawful Act Manslaughter is involuntary Manslaughter and is a common law offence with a maximum life imprisonment - trialed in the crown court.
What are the Actus Reus elements for Unlawful Act Manslaughter?
- Unlawful Act - Must be a crime, an act of omission and all elements must be complete
- Dangerous Act - Test is that sober and reasonable person would foresee the risk of some harm
- Causes Death - CAUSATION APPLIES HERE! However if the V injects themselves then it will break the chain of causation and D will not be guilt.
What Gross Negligence Manslaughter?
Gross negligence manslaughter is a common law offence with a maximum life sentence, trialed in the Crown Court.
Main cae is DPP v Adomako which gives the current requirements.
What are the five requirements for Gross negligence manslaughter?
1 - DUTY OF CARE:
Responsibility to look out for the wellbeing of another
Outside of the relationships a duty of care will exist wherever D’s conduct carries a foreseeable risk to those around them.
2 - BREACH OF DUTY:
D has not upheld the standard of care that is required of them - they have not acted as reasonable person in their position (Adomako)
3 - CAUSES OF DEATH:
Causation rules apply here!!
4 - REASONABLE FORESIGHT OF DEATH:
There needs to be a reasonably foreseeable, serious and obvious risk of death - (Adomako)
5 - GROSS NEGLIGENCE:
Negligence has to be so bad that it justifies a criminal conviction –> look in reading pack.
