Fatal Offences Scenario Plans

Question 1

Murder - Introduction

Answer 1

Murder is a common law defence which was defined by Lord Coke who defined it as the ‘unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being, under the monarch’s peace, with malice aforethought, express or implied.’

Question 2

Murder - Actus Reus

Answer 2

The actus reus for murder is ‘an unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the monarch’s peace’ The murder can be due to an omission as shown in R V Gibbins and Proctor. APPLY

Question 3

Murder - Causation

Answer 3

The defendant must have a factual causation using the but-for test as shown in R V Pagett, where it must be established that it was because of the defendants actions that the consequence happened. Legal causation must also be established, which suggests that D’s actions must be more than minimal, as shown in R V Kimsey, and lastly, there must be no intervening act which breaks the chain of causation (R V Pagett). APPLY

Question 4

Murder - Mens Rea

Answer 4

As for the mens rea, it is the ‘malice aforethought, express or implied’. Express malice is direct intent (R V Mohan) and oblique intent (R V Woollin). Implied malice is intending GBH but instead murder is caused, as seen in R V Vickers. Transferred malice can also make you guilty, as shown in R V Gnango. APPLY

Question 5

Diminished Responsibility - Introduction

Answer 5

Diminished responsibility is a partial, special defence to murder. It is set out in the Homicide Act 1957 (as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009). Anyone who kills or is party to a killing will not be liable for murder, but instead voluntary manslaughter, if they have an abnormality of mental functioning that arose from a recognised medical condition; this must impair the ability of D to exercise self-control, or form a rational judgement, or understand their actions, and must explain the killing.

Question 6

Diminished Responsibility - Abnormality of MF

Answer 6

In R V Byrne, an abnormality of mental functioning was described as one “that would be termed by the ordinary man as abnormal”. APPLY

Question 7

Diminished Responsibility - Medical Condition

Answer 7

This must arise from a recognised medical condition. This covers physical mental and psychological conditions which can be evidenced - usually via a doctor or specialist. We tend to use the WHO database to judge what is ‘recognised’ but this can evolve, as is the case with Battered Person Syndrome. APPLY

Question 8

Diminished Responsibility - Substantially Impair

Answer 8

This medical condition must substantially impaired D’s ability to either understand the nature of his conduct, or, form a rational judgement, or, exercise self-control. Many cases have evolved the meaning of ‘substantial’, including R V Byrne where it was decided that the jury must decide. APPLY

Question 9

Diminished Responsibility - Reason For Killing

Answer 9

The defence must show that the medical condition led to abnormality of mental functioning which led to the criteria in b and is the reason for the killing. This principle was introduced in CJA 2009. There must be a link between b and c. This was shown in Golds, where the medical condition was one in which there are ‘episodes’ rather than one state of mental functioning. APPLY

Question 10

Diminished Responsibility - Intoxication

Answer 10

In Dietschmann, Lord Hutton directed “Has D satisfied you that, despite the drink, his mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibilities for his fatal acts?”. APPLY

Question 11

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Introduction

Answer 11

Gross negligence manslaughter is where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim and has acted in a negligent way, leading to loss of life. The negligence must be so bad, it is criminal. This was defined in R V Broughton which established the 6 elements: duty of care, breach of duty, serious and obvious risk of death, reasonable foreseeable risk, breach of duty made a more than minimal contribution to the death, the breach was exceptionally bad and was gross negligence and criminal.

Question 12

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Duty Breached

Answer 12

In order to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter, D must owe a duty of care to V and this duty of care must be breached. A duty of care can be established to apply in a contractual duty, as shown in R V Litchfield. This duty is breached if there is a risk of death which isn’t protected against, as shown in R V Evans. APPLY

Question 13

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Reasonably Foreseeable

Answer 13

The risk of death must be reasonably foreseeable, as shown in R V Rudling, and serious and obvious, as shown in R V Rose. This means that a risk may be present, but it must be reasonable to expect D to foresee this and the risk must be serious, and obvious enough to an average person in the circumstances of D. APPLY

Question 14

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - More Than Minimal

Answer 14

Finally, the breach must be more than minimal in causing the death and must be criminally and grossly negligent. This means negligence does not have to be the only or main cause of death, but it must be significant, as shown in R V Broughton. The breach must also be so bad, it is criminal, as shown in R V Bateman. APPLY

Question 15

Unlawful Act Manslaughter - Introduction

Answer 15

Unlawful act manslaughter is where the defendant had intended to commit an unlawful act which has, as a consequence, caused the death of a victim. This act must be a dangerous act in that it was one which a sober and reasonable person would regard as dangerous. If found liable for UAM, you will be found guilty for involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing without direct or oblique intent to cause GBH or to kill.

Question 16

Unlawful Act Manslaughter - Mens Rea

Answer 16

The first step of establishing liability of unlawful act manslaughter is establishing the mens rea. The mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter is intending to commit the unlawful act. This means there must be intention for the crime committed, for example in R V Goodfellow there was intention to commit arson or DPP V Newbury and Jones where there was intention to commit criminal damage. APPLY

Question 17

Unlawful Act Manslaughter - Actus Reus

Answer 17

The next step of establishing unlawful act manslaughter is establishing the actus reus. The actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter is committing an unlawful act which is dangerous and causes the death of V. The law on causation applies. The act must be a crime, as shown in R V Lamb. It must be dangerous according to the Church test, which states that a reasonable and sober person would appreciate there is a risk of some harm. It does not have to be the exact or serious harm, as shown in R V JM and SM. APPLY

Question 18

Loss of Control - Introduction

Answer 18

Loss of Control is a partial defence found in s54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which if successful, reduces charge to voluntary manslaughter. It replaced the former defence of provocation as a result of recommendations by the Law Commission.

Question 19

Loss of Control - Normal Powers of Reasoning

Answer 19

The first section of this statute states that D’s acts or omissions in doing or being party to the killing resulted in D’s loss of self-control. The loss of control does not have to be sudden, but must be a total loss of control - and D must have either lost their normal powers of reasoning, lost their ability to act in accordance with rational judgement or D’s behaviour was out of character or abnormal for them as shown in R V Jewell where it was shown that being ‘unable to think straight’ was not sufficient enough. APPLY

Question 20

Loss of Control - Qualifying Trigger

Answer 20

The second part of the statute states that The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger. There are set circumstances which can lead to loss of control. These are set out in s55 of CJA 2009 which says that D’s fear of serious violence from V against D as shown in R V Lodge, or another identified person or things or said or done which: constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and Caused D to have a justified sense of being seriously wronged as shown in R V Zebedee. APPLY

Question 21

Loss of Control - Reasonable Person

Answer 21

Finally, it must be established that a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way to D. This means that the fact that D may be quick to anger, hot-tempered or particularly violent is not taken into account as shown in R V Asmelash. APPLY