Homicide Flashcards
1
Q
R v Gibbins & Proctor [1919]
A
- P was G’s mistress, V was G’s daughter
- P stopped feeding V, allowing her to starve
- G appealed that he had left P in charge and hadn’t known -> conviction upheld
- BUT he had a duty of care as a parent, which he breached as he failed to intervene
- G lived in the same house as V, so he must have known she was starving, thus he had intention to commit gbh (MR)
2
Q
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
A
- B was put on life support after accident -> permanent vegatitive state
- kept alive for over 2 years with no improvement
- could breath on his own but required feeding tube and full care
- case went to HoL
- Court held 2 key points
- doctors need to act in the best interest for their patients -> dying is never in their best interest but B wasn’t imrpoving, so it was argued that living without improvement also wasn’t in his best interest
- it is not lawful to cause or accelerate death, but withholding life-extending treatment was an omission which was, in this case, deemed to be lawful
- a distinction was made between turning off life support and removing the feeding tube
3
Q
R v Young [2005]
A
- D had been previously convicted of wounding with intent and acquitted of attempted murder
- she was subsequently prosecuted for murder when V died from injuries
- Court ruled that the 2nd prosecution didn’t offend double jeopardy because V died after the ending of the first trial
- Held that there are special circumstances if new facts emerge after the previous conviction which justify a new prosecution for a more serious crime
4
Q
R v Poulton (1832)
A
- mother strangled her newborn baby
- charged with murder
- 3 medical men testified that children can die during delivery and that even if it breathes before the whole body is delivered doesn’t mean it is alive
- Court held that an unborn child is incapable of being killed
- A child is born only when the whole body is brought into the world
- the jury found the child not to be born alive, and therefore the mother could not be guilty of murder
5
Q
AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) [1998]
A
- B stabbed M in the stomach, knowing she was pregnant with his child
- M went to hospital and prematurely gave birth to the child, which lived for 121 days and then died due to complications caused by premature birth
- the foetus had been cut by the wound, but that wasn’t what caused the death
- B was convicted of wounding M, but trial judge stated he couldn’t be tried for murder for the child
- Lord Mustill held that “a foetus cannot be the victim of a crime of violence whilst in the uterus”
- BUT the child died after it had been born -> was legally a person -> Court needed to find MR
- For murder, MR would have to be transferred malice, but foetus isn’t a person at the time of the attack, meaning the ‘malice’ would have to pile up -> Mustill didn’t like this
- instead, Lords found that B could have been convicted for unlawful act manslaughter
- the 3 elements: (1) and unlawful act, (2) that was dangerous, (3) caused the death of a person -> all occurred -> 1 & 2 don’t have to apply to the same person as 3 -> (1) & (2) applied to M, which led to death of the child
6
Q
R v Moloney [1985]
A
- D and his stepfather got drunk, were playing around with loading guns -> stepfather challenged D to shoot the gun, and D’s shot killed his stepfather
- convicted of murder -> appeal went to HL
- appeal was allowed -> he had not intended to kill his stepfather
- Knowledge of foresight of the consequences of an action were to be considered at best material from which a crime of intent may be inferred
- Foresight of the natural consequences of an act is no more than evidence of the existence of intent
- Also, in this case, Lords showed their dislike for ‘malice aforethought’ -> “an anachronistic and now wholly inappropriate phrase […] to denote the necessary mental element”
7
Q
R v Vickers [1957]
A
- D was trying to rob a house & beat up the owner when she found him
- she died of her injuries
- D relied on s.1 Homicide Act 1957, which abolished constructive malice, and as he never intended to kill her, he should be guilty at most of manslaughter, not murder
- conviction was upheld
- Held that he had the intent to commit gbh which is sufficient for MR of murder
“the existence of express or implied malice is expressly preserved by the Act”
8
Q
DPP v Smith [1961]
A
- S was ordered by a police officer to stop but he accelerated instead (he had stolen goods in his car)
- officer jumped onto his car, but fell off after S swerved the car, and was killed by another oncoming vehicle
- S was convicted of murder -> appealed to CoA -> then to HoL
- CoA agreed with S that test for MR for murder is subjective, and he didn’t have the intent therefore he didn’t have MR
- HoL held that the test for MR for murder is objective -> a reasonable person needs to be able to foresee that the action will cause death / gbh
- also confirms that Vickers was correct with regards to implied malice -> the wording in the Homicide Act was “clear beyond doubt”
9
Q
R v Powell [1999]
A
- a case of joint enterprise
- P & D and another person went to a drug dealer’s house -> he was shot dead on entry
- P claimed he thought they were buying cannabis
- D argued that P was responsible for the shooting, and that he hadn’t known about the gun
- convicted on the basis of joint enterprise -> for such a case, it is enough to show that the secondary party contemplated that the primary might kill with intent or intend to cause gbh -> appeal was dismissed
- Lord Steyn on constuctive liability for murder:
- “This rule turns murder into a constructive crime. The fault element does not correspond to the conduct leading to the charge”
- “The present definition of the mental element of murder results in defendants being classified as murderers who are not in truth murderers”
