Homicide Flashcards
What is a human being under the eyes of the law?
What case shows this?
What constitutes dead?
What case shows this?
A person is a human being when it can exist independent of its mother
AG’s reference No 3 of 1994
The courts favour the definition of ‘brain-dead’
R v Malcherek and Steel
Explain the first element of factual causation?
Give an example case?
The ‘but for’ test asks but for the conduct of the victim would the victim have died as and when they did? if the answer is no then the defendant will be liable for the death
R v White - Man poisoned his mother who died of an unrelated heart attack. Since she would have died but for his actions he could not be found liable
What is the second element of factual causation?
Give a case example?
The de minimis test requires that the original injury caused by the defendants actions must be more than a minimal cause of death
R v Pagett - Pagett using his girlfriend as a human shield was more than a minimal cause of death
What is the first element of legal causation?
What are the two case examples?
The injury must be the operating and substantial cause of death. The test considers whether the original injury inflicted by the defendant is still the operating and substantial cause of death and that the chain of causation has not been broken by another event.
R v Smith - Stabbed soldier dropped twice, suffered a delay in seeing a doctor and subsequently received poor treatment and died. Stab wound was still operating and substantial cause of death so defendant liable
R v Jordan - Stabbed victim had nearly recovered from his wounds but was given antibiotics he had previously shown an allergic reaction to and died as a result. Defendant was not found liable as this event had broken the chain of causation
What is the second element of legal causation?
What is a case example?
The thin skull test means the defendant must take their victim as they find them. If the victim dies as result of an unusual or unexpected condition, the defendant is still responsible for the death. For example punching someone who has a thin skull and they die.
R v Blaue - Defendant stabbed jehovahs witness who later refused a life saving blood transfusion and died. Thin skull rule states he must take his victim as he finds them and he was found liable
What is the third element of legal causation?
Give a case example?
Foreseeable intervening act - If the intervening act is foreseeable, courts have concluded that it will not be enough to break the chain of causation. However, if the intervening act is so extraordinary as to not be foreseeable, it can break the chain of causation.
R v Roberts - Woman was injured after jumping from moving car after panicking that the defendant would sexually assault her. The court held that the reaction was foreseeable and was therefore not enough to break the chain of causation
What is the mens rea for murder defined as?
What is direct intention?
What is indirect intention?
What happenned in the case of R v Nedrick and what is it’s significance?
“Malice Aforethought”
Defendant wants the victim to die and does what is neccesary to achieve it
defendant foresees the consequences but does not want the consequence to happen
Defendant was convicted of murder after throwing paraffin through the letterbox of a woman who he had a grudge against. The woman’s 12 year old son died in the process. The court held that the jury should consider how probable the consequence was and whether it was foreseen by the defendant. The jury may infer intention if they are confident that the defendant realised the consequence was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated this to be the case
What acts is voluntary manslaughter contained in?
The burden of proof lies on who?
Homicide Act 1957 and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
The defence must prove it
What is the first defence of voluntary manslaughter?
What is the first element of this defence?
What has been changed in the new act to favour woman?
Is cumulative loss of self control possible give case examples?
Loss of control
Defendant must have lost their self-control at the time of the actus reus
Loss of control need not be sudden meaning that women with a ‘slow-burn’ reaction will not be treated less fairly
It may be as shown by R v Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer
What is the second element of loss of control?
What does the s55 (i) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 suggest and who does this help?
Is the test subjective or objective?
The loss of control must be caused by a qualifying trigger
Suggests that the qualifying trigger can be a fear of serious violence from the victim. This new concept protects woman who have been victim to domestic abuse and homeowners who have protected their property by killing a burglar
The test is subjective which menas it is how the defendant fears, not how the ‘reasonable man’ or somone else in their position would fear the serious vioence. It has been suggested, however that the victim has to be the source of violenceadn the defendant has to fear that the violence is directed towards them
S55 (ii) Coroners and Justice act 2009 states that something else can serve as a qualifying trigger. What is it?
Why is this a narrow approach?
Things that are said and done of an extremely grave character, causing the defendant a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
The sense of being wrong must be justified, which is an objective test and one which can only be determined by the jury. The court of appeal observed in R v Clinton, Parker and Evans that this requires and objective evaluation
What is the third and final element of loss of control?
What case does the new defence seemed to have followed?
The objective test that asks whether a person of the defendant’s sex and age, with an ordinary level of tolerance and self-restraint, and in similar circumstances have acted the same or in a similar way to the defendant
A-G for Jersey v Holley
What is the second defence under voluntary manslaughter?
What is the first element of this defence?
Give an example of a case that would likely succeed under this new defence?
Diminished responsibliltiy
The defendant is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition.
R v Martin (Anthony) would probably have succeeded under this defence
What is the second element of diminished responsibility?
Does it matter if alcohol and drugs are involved?
The abnormality of mental functioning must be a significant contributory factor to the killing
No it does not seem to matter as the key question is whether the medical contribution overrides that and is a significant factor to the killing
What is the third element of diminished responsibility?
The abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to: understand the nature of their conduct; or form a rational judgement; or exercise self control
