Homicide Flashcards
UAM is governed by?
A range of common laws
UAM: the D had committed a crime and not a tort
Franklin
UAM: the unlawful act is a positive act
Lowe
UAM: the D must satisfy all of the elements of the unlawful act
Lamb
UAM: the D act is objectively dangerous if the reasonable and sober person foresees a risk of harm from their conduct
Church
UAM: objectively dangerous act doesn’t have to be aimed at the V
Larkin
UAM: objectively dangerous act can be aimed at property
Goodfellow
UAM: if the V had a obvious vulnerability, the D would know, and so would the reasonable and sober person
Watson
UAM: reasonable and sober person has to foresee some harm and not a specific type of harm
JM v SM
UAM: doesn’t matter if the D didn’t realise if their conduct was dangerous, as long as the reasonable and sober person would realise it
Bristow
UAM: usual rule of causation also apply to UAM
Attorney General Reference ( No 3 of 1994)
UAM: D must have the men’s rea of the unlawful act
Lamb
UAM: transferred malice can apply to UAM
Mitchell
UAM: All that matters is that they satisfy the MR of the unlawful act
Newbury & Jones
Diminished responsibility : governed by
S2(1) Homicide Act 1957 amended by S52 Corners and Justice Act 2009
Diminished responsibility: D’s state of mind is so different that a reasonable man would consider it abnormal
Lord Parker CJ
Diminished responsibility: the AMF doesn’t have to be permanent or present at birth
Gomez
Diminished responsibility: depression
Gittens
Diminished responsibility: irresistible impulses
Bryne
Diminished responsibility: battered wife syndrome
Ahluawalia
Diminished responsibility: alcoholism
Wood
Diminished responsibility: ADS
Stewart
Diminished responsibility: paranoia
Simcox
Diminished responsibility: adjustment disorder
Dietschmann
Diminished responsibility: Schizophrenia
Moyle
Diminished responsibility: medical evidence is required for the defence to be successful
Bunch
Diminished responsibility: rational judgement
Simcox
Diminished responsibility: nature of his conduct
Stewart
Diminished responsibility: exercise self control
Bryne
Diminished responsibility: substantial doesn’t mean a total impairment, but is more than minimal or trivial
Lloyd
Diminished responsibility: AMF is the cause or significant contribution in the unlawful killing
S1B Homicide Act 1957
GNM: governed by
Adomako
GNM: definition of duty of care is the same as in negligence
Wacker
GNM: reasonable steps to remedy a dangerous situation
Miller
GNM: voluntarily took on a duty of care
Stone and Dobinson
GNM: duty of care due to a special relationship
Gibbons and Proctor
GNM: contractual duty of care
Pittwood
GNM: a duty of care due to a public duty role (police officer)
Dytham
GNM: doctor and patient
Adomako
GNM: landlord and tenant
Singh
GNM: employers and employees
Dean
GNM: the duty of care will apply whenever a Ds conduct carries a foreseeable risk to those around them
Evans
GNM: if the D fails to reach the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the same position and the breach is so serious, it is criminally wrong
Adomako
GNM: the Ds conduct must pose a reasonably foreseeable serous and obvious risk of death
Rose
GNM: usual rules of causation apply to GNM
Singh
GNM: the breach has to be gross and go beyond a mere matter of compensation between parties
Adomako
GNM: if the breach is flagrant and atrocious, it is gross and therefore a crime
Cornish
GNM: it is the jury to decide if the D is grossly negligent
Sellu
Murder: the Ds conduct causes the unlawful killing of a creature in being during kings peace with malice aforethought expressed or implied
Lord Justice Coke
Murder: a reasonable creature in being is a human being that is independent from its birth mother
Poutler
Murder: the umbilical cord doesn’t need to be cut to be a reasonable creature in being
Reeves
Murder: a foetus is not a reasonable creature in being
Attorney General Reference (No3 of 1994)
Murder: the destruction of a foetus can be criminal
Infant life (preservation) act 1929
Murder: a person on life support with no brain activity is a reasonable person in being
Malcherek
Murder: there is no time limit on death after the unlawful act or omission, but if it is more than 3 years after the event, the consent of the attorney general may is needed to prosecute
Law reform (year and a day rule) act 1996
Murder: for a killing to be during kings peace, it must not be a part of war
Blackman
Murder: D committed the unlawful killing with malice aforethought expressed or implied
Lord justice Coke
Murder: Ds aim or purpose to unlawfully kill a creature in being (direct intent)
Mohan
Murder: Ds aim or purpose to cause GBH (direct intent to cause serious harm)
Vickers
Murder: D did not intent to kill the V, but it was virtually certain death or serious harm would occur and they realised this (foresight of consequences)
Woollin
Murder: governed by
Law: Lord justic coke
Intro: Homicide Act 1957
Loss of control: governed by
S54 coroners and justice act 2009
Loss of control: the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the D didn’t have a loss of control when they killed
Martin
Loss of control: the D must have suffered from a loss of control at the time of the killing
Jewell
Loss of control: the Ds loss of control doesn’t have to be sudden after a qualifying trigger
S54(2) coroners and justice act 2009
Loss of control: one qualifying trigger is a fear of serious violence
S55(3) coroners and justice act 2009
Loss of control: The D must fear serious violence
Goodwin
Loss of control: the fear of violence can be towards an identified person and not just the D
Ward
Loss of control: the fear of serious violence can come from another person and not the V
Loss of control: one qualifying trigger is a thing said or done
S55(4) coroner and justice act 2009
Loss of control: the thing said or done must be extremely grave in character to the D; and gives them justifiable sense of being wronged
Zebedee
Loss of control: a breakdown of a relationship isn’t circumstances of the extremely grave character or justify a sense of being wronged
Hatter
Loss of control: revenge is not an allowed qualifying trigger
Ibrams and Gregory
Loss of control: Ds inciting something said or done isn’t a qualifying trigger
S55(6)(a) coroners and justice act 2009
Loss of control: sexual infidelity is not a qualifying trigger
S55(6)(c) coroners and justice act 2009
Loss of control: sexual infidelity can be considered as a qualifying trigger when there are other factors with it
Clinton
Loss of control: standard of control test is governed by
S54(1)(c) coroners and justice act 2009
Loss of control: would a normal person of the same age
Camplin
Loss of control: and gender with tolerance and self restraint
Mohammed
Loss of control: In the same circumstance as the D
Gregson
Loss of control: Response in the same or similar way
Van dongen
Loss of control: unemployment, depression and epilepsy
Gregson
Loss of control: sexual abuse
Hill
Loss of control: PTSD
Rejmanski
Loss of control: personality disorder
Wilcocks
Loss of control: sexual infidelity, as long as other qualifying triggers are present
Clinton
Loss of control: if D is intoxicated this must be ignored as the normal person is someone who is sober
Asmelash
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: governed by
S2(1) Homicide Act 1957 amended by S52 Corners and Justice Act 2009 & Stewart
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: if the D was intoxicated but did not suffer from an AMF at the time they killed, the partial defence of diminished responsibility is unavailable
Dowds
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: The Ds AMF and intoxication were unrelated, therefore the intoxication is disregarded and the diminished responsibility test is applied as normal
Deitschmann
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: as the Ds AMF is due to ADS, a modified version of the s2(1) homicide act 1957 amended by s52 coroners and justice act 2009 diminished responsibility legal test is applied
Stewart
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: intoxication criteria- if the D suffered an AMF caused by ADS at the time they killed, they do not have to have brain damage and their drinking doesn’t have to be 100% involuntary
Wood
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: AMF- same as in diminished responsibility test
Stewart
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: Recognised medical condition- same as in diminished responsibility test but only ADS is the only WHO condition
Stewart
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- first, the extent and seriousness of the Ds dependency on alcohol and the extent to which they could control the drinking at the time of the killing
Lord Parker CJ in Stewart
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- rational judgement
Simcox
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- nature of their conduct
Stewart
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- exercise of self control
Byrne
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: substantial impairment- the AMF is more than the minimal or trivial cause of the killing (as it is the only cause)
Lloyd
Intoxicated Diminished responsibility: provides an alternative explanation for the killing- the AMF is the cause or significant contribution in the unlawful killing and explains the Ds conduct
S1B homicide act 1957