Fatal offences - Murder

Question 1

What is the mandatory punishment for murder?

Answer 1

Mandatory punishment is a life sentence.

Question 2

Who defined murder?

Answer 2

Sir Edward Coke defined murder.

Question 3

What is the quote that defines murder?

Answer 3

“The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied”

Question 4

What part of the quote is the actus reus of the offence?

Answer 4

The AR of the offence is the “unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the King’s peace”.

Question 5

What 4 aspects must be proved for the AR of the offence? (using the quote to help)

Answer 5

1. The D killed
2. The victim is a reasonable creature in being
3. Under the King’s peace
4. The killing was unlawful

Question 6

Define the AR of killing including causation.

Answer 6

Killing can be an act or an omission but it MUST cause the death of the victim. Because murder is a result crime, causation means that the D can’t be guilty unless they CAUSED the death of the victim. There can be no break in the chain of causation.

Question 7

Name and describe a case under the killing aspect of murder. (omission)

Answer 7

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
The parents of a 7 year old girl failed to feed her which resulted in her death, the court decided their omission was enough of an AR.

Question 8

What is a reasonable creature in being?
Name an example of what ISN’T considered a reasonable creature in being.

Answer 8

A living human being, a foetus isn’t considered a reasonable creature in being as it has to have an existence independent of the mother.

Question 9

When would a murder be seen as being under the King’s peace?

Answer 9

In the course of war.

Question 10

When may the killing be seen as lawful (in consideration of the AR)?

Answer 10

If it is done in self-defence, the defence of another or in the prevention of crime. BUT, the D must have used reasonable force within the circumstance.

Question 11

Define the MR of murder and what it means.

Answer 11

The MR is “malice aforethought express or implied”. This means there are 2 types of intention.

Question 12

What is the definition of the 2 types of intention ? What do you need to do in an exam?

Answer 12

1. Express malice aforethought/direct - intention to kill
   OR
2. Implied malice aforethought/oblique - intention to cause GBH.
   In an exam you MUST STATE what type of intention the D has.

Question 13

Name and describe the case that confirmed the D will be found guilty of murder if they had either of the MR intentions.

Answer 13

R v Vickers (1957)
The D broke into the cellar of a sweet shop, he knew the owner was a deaf elderly lady who came into the cellar whilst he was there. He hit and kicked her which caused her death. The D was guilty of murder as he intended to cause GBH but ultimately killed the victim.

Question 14

How is grievous bodily harm defined in reference to cases?

Answer 14

DPP V Smith (1961) - grievous means no more and no less than ‘really serious harm’
R v Saunders (1985) - the word ‘serious’ could be omitted.

Question 15

What is transferred malice? Name and define a case.

Answer 15

This is when the D means to kill/cause GBH to someone but ACCIDENTALLY does it to another, it doesn’t matter who the intended victim was, it is still classed as murder.
R v Latimer (1886) - The D tried to hit a man with a belt in a bar fight but accidentally hit a bystander causing serious harm.

Question 16

How is factual causation defined? Name a case. AR

Answer 16

The courts will use the ‘but for’ test. Would the death have happened BUT FOR the D’s actions.
R v White - A son attempted to kill his mother by poison but she died of an unrelated heart attack. He was charged with attempted murder as the poison didn’t cause the victims’ death.

Question 17

Define legal causation. AR

Answer 17

The D’s acts must be more than minimal in causing the death BUT doesn’t need to be substantial.

Question 18

What is the thin skull rule? Name and define a case. APPLY IN EXAM

Answer 18

The thin skull rule means the D must take the victim as he finds them. This means that if the result effect is worse for this victim than a normal victim, the D is still liable. R v Blaue included the D who injured the V to the point of needing a blood transfusion which the V declined due to religious reasons. The D was liable for the V’s death.

Question 19

How does a break in the chain of causation absolve the defendants liability?

Answer 19

Different tests are applied to see if the chain was broken, if there is a break the D will likely not be found liable unless the act of a third party is foreseeable.

Question 20

What is a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 20

An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.