fatal offences - murder Flashcards
What type of offence is murder?
A common law homicide offence which means that the offence is not defined by any Act of Parliament
Who gave a definition of murder in the 17th century and what was the definition?
Edward Coke - The unlawful killing of a reasonable person(human being) in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought express or implied
What three things are needed to establish murder?
Actus reus
Causation
Mens rea
What are the 4 elements of the actus reus when it comes to murder?
The defendant killed
The killing was an unlawful killing
Reasonable creature
King’s peace
What is meant by ‘the defendant killed’ in terms of an element of the actus reus for murder?
The killing must be a voluntary positive act or an omission.
What is meant by ‘the killing was an unlawful killing’ in terms of an element of the actus reus for murder?
is there a defence to apply to the offence? usually not but needs to be mentioned - loss of control, duress, intoxication, diminished responsibility
What is meant by ‘reasonable creature’ in terms of an element of the actus reus for murder?
means a human being - for murder a living person must be killed
What are the rules for ‘reasonable creature’ for the actus reus for murder surrounding unborn children?
The D can’t be charged with murder in respect of killing a fetus but the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 sets out that the D can’t kill a unborn but viable feotus
In terms of unborn children, when would it be seen that the child is a human being?
The child has to have an existence independent of the mother for it to be considered a creature if being. This means it must have been expelled from her body
What is meant by ‘king’s peace’ in terms of an element of the actus reus for murder?
The killing of an enemy soldier during a war is not a murder as the king is at war
What is meant by causation in relation to murder?
Murder is a result crime therefore the D can’t be found guilty unless his act or omission caused the death
What are the two types of causation?
Factual
Legal
What is meant by Factual causation and name two cases to support it:
The D can only be guilty of the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct: R v white & R v Pagett
What happened in the case of R v White?
White put potassium sionide in his mothers drink before bed trying to kill her to gain the inheritance money. His mother died of an unrelated heart attack therefore his actions didn’t cause her death and he couldn’t be charged with murder
What happened in the case of R v Pagett?
D used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield when police were trying to arrest him for shooting her father and kidnapping her mother. A police sniper shot and killed D’s gf by accident. It was held that ‘but for’ the actions of the D, his gf would not have died
What are the two issues that need to be addressed by legal causation?
-Is the D’s action more than a minimal cause of the death (De minimis rule):Kimsey
-Is D’s conduct a substantial cause of the death. Was the actions of the D the operating cause of the death: R v Smith
What happened in the case of R v Smith?
Soldier was in a fight and was stabbed. His colleagues took him to a medic but dropped him several times of the way. The doctor failed to diagnose a punctured lung and the soldier died - it was held that the stab wound was the operating cause of death
What is meant by Novus actus Interveniens?
intervening acts - something may happen between the actions of the D and the death of the V and it needs to be established who is the ‘actual’ cause of the V’s death
What are the two intervening acts that may be considered in a murder?
medical treatment
Victims own acts
How likely is medical treatment to break the chain of causation and why is this?
Suggesting that medical treatment might break the chain of causation is contentious because he the D not harmed the V in the first place, he would not have ended up in hospital. Medical treatment is most unlikely to break the chain of causation
When will medical treatment break the chain of causation? Give a case example:
If the medical treatment is so overwhelming/palpably wrong as to make the original wound a mere part of the case history, would it be an novus actus interveniens: R v Jordan
What case shows when medical treatment would not break the chain of causation?
R v Cheshire
What happened in the case of R v Jordan?
Jordan stabbed a man who died of pneumonia following the abdominal injury sustained. The V was intolerant to the drug which was being given to him at the hospital before the doctors realised this and stopped the treatment. The next day a new doctor started this drug again in abnormal quantities which waterlogged the V’s lungs - the treatment was so independent from the initial wound that it broke the chain of causation
What happened in the case R v Cheshire?
A V was being treated after being shot. The doctor inserted a tracheotomy tube to improve the V’s conditions. 4 weeks later it was removed but several days after, the v was having respiratory issues due to the narrowing of his windpipe - the medical care was necessary because of the wound V had due to D’s actions therefore the treatment wasn’t the substantial cause of the V’s death
What is meant by ‘victims own acts’ in terms of causation? What two cases support this?
The V’s own acts following an injury may break the chain of causation if the v acted in an unreasonable and unforeseeable way after the injury: R v Roberts & R v Williams and Davis
What happened in the case of R v Roberts?
A female hitchhiker was picked up by a male driver who started attempting to touch her and said he was going to rape then kill the girl, the girl jumper out the car at a high speed and died - the driver started the chain of events and was guilty of attempted murder and rape
What happened in the case R v Williams and Davis?
A male hitchhiker got picked up by 2 other men who wanted his money, phone, personal belongings etc. The man threw himself out the car and he survived due to the low speed of the car - D was not guilty as the chain of causation was broken
What happens when the V’s fail to seek medical intervention? Give a case example:
R v Dear: If a V aggravated his wounds sufficiently to cause otherwise avoidable death, the chain of causation is not broken. This would include not seeking medical attention
What happened in the case of R v Dear?
The D’s daughter accused a man of sexually abusing her. The D went after the man and repeatedly slashed him with a stanley knife. The V received medical treatment but later re-opened his wounds in what was thought to be a suicide and died two days after the initial attack. The D argued the man’s actions in opening the wounds amounted to a novus actus interveniens. The D’s conviction was upheld. The wound was still an operating and substantial cause of death.
What principle did the case of R v Malcherek bring about? What are the case facts?
The switching off a life support machines does not act as a novus actus - d stabbed his wife. She was taken to hospital and put on a life support machine, but suffered two heart failures. After ten days she had suffered irretrievable brain damage and the doctors switched off the machine
What is the thin skull rule and what case support this?
The D must take his V as he finds him. This means if the D has a particularly vulnerable V he is fully liable for the consequences even if an ordinary person would not have suffered such severe consequences: R v Blaue
What happened in the case of R v Blaue?
Blaue was a Jehovah witness and was shot. she was taken to the hospital but needed a blood transfusion but it was against her religious beliefs and refused it. She then died and D was held liable for starting the chain of events
What is the mens rea for murder?
Murder is a crime of specific intent therefore only intention will suffice - ‘malice aforethought’ express or implied
What are the two different intentions for the mens rea of murder?
Express malice aforethought - intention to kill
Implied malice aforethought - intention to cause gbh
What happened in the case of R v Vickers?
Vickers broke into a sweet shop owned by an elderly woman. When caught by the shop owner he struck her multiple times which resulted in her death. The court held that an intention to cause GBH was sufficient to establish the mens rea for murder
What is ‘intent’ in terms of the mens rea for murder?
The prosecution must show that the D intended to kill the V.
What are the two types of intent for the mens rea of murder?
Direct intent
Indirect intent
What is meant by direct intent? What case shows this?
In the majority of cases the D intends the specific consequences to occur, for example, they decide to kill a person, aim a gun at them and pull the trigger: R v Mohan
What is indirect intent? What case shows this?
When the D’s aim was not the prohibited consequence but, in achieving their aim, they realised or foresaw that they would cause the consequence: Woollin
What two questions will be asked under indirect intent?
-Was death or really serious injury a virtual certainty
-Did D appreciate that such was the case?
What happened in the case of Woollin?
Woollin was the father of a baby who was very young and started to choke on its food. Woollin was annoyed by this and threw the baby into the cot/pram. He missed and the baby fell to its death. The D didn’t mean to kill the child but the consequences of throwing a baby were very clear and therefore the D was guilty of murder
What happened in the case of R v Matthews and Alleyne?
This shows the 2 part test: The D’s threw the V into the river. The v drowned. The Ds argued that although they knew the V could not swim, they did not intend for him to die. They were convicted of murder and it was held that it was virtually certain that the V was going to die
What is transferred malice in relation to murder and what case shows this?
When the mens rea is transferred from the intended V to the unintended V. If D intends to harm victim 1 and, in error, harms victim 2, the D is still guilty of the crime against victim 2: R v Mitchell
What happened in the case of R v mitchell?
Mitchell pushed V1 who fell on V2 who died. The court held that Mitchell was guilty of the manslaughter if V2 as the malice intended for V1 was transferred to V2.
When will malice not be transferred and what case shows this?
When the D intends to harm a person but damages property instead and vice versa - the crime must be of the same nature for malice to be transferred: R v Pembliton
What happened in the case of R v Pembliton?
D threw a pebble at V1 but missed and broke a window. The court held that D was not guilty of criminal damage as the intended crime was one of physical harm from person to person
