Homicide

Question 0

Murder per Coke

Answer 0

An unlawful killing; of a human being (AG Ref (No 3 1994)); under the Queen’s peace

With an intention to kill or cause GBH (Moloney)

Question 1

Admoako

Answer 1

Gross negligence manslaughter, where liability would not normally occur however, where death ensues, liability may incur

Question 2

DPP v Beard

Answer 2

Constructive malice was abolished in the Homicide Act s1

Question 3

Malcherek

Answer 3

There must have been a death in fact

Question 4

Moloney, Hancock and Shankland, Nedrick, Woollin

Answer 4

Intention to kill/cause GBH - ‘virtually certain consequence’ - jury Q

Question 5

Voluntary manslaughter

Answer 5

D has AR + MR for murder but has one of the following to potentially reduce their conviction to manslaughter:

(i) LOC (formerly provocation)
(ii) Diminished responsibility
(iii) Suicide pact

Question 6

Clinton

Dawes

Answer 6

LOSC has been said to have ‘raised the bar’ above that of provocation, commentators have disagreed - Dawes was more open RE deliberation, Clinton said the longer the delay the less likely

Need evidence of LOC + a qualifying trigger

Question 7

Ward

Answer 7

Fear of serious violence - s55(3) - occurs in 2 scenarios:

• when cannot plead self-defence as no imminent threat
• the use of violence is so excessive that there can be no self-defence

Question 8

Camplin

Answer 8

s55(4) - things said or done - need:

1. Something said or done which caused D LOC
2. The things said or done must be of an ‘extremely grave character’
3. Because of the things said or done D had a justifiable sense of being wronged

Question 9

Clinton (test)

Answer 9

Both elements are tested objective i.e. whether D did actually have LOC and whether there was a qualifying trigger

Question 10

Zebedee (dad soiling, new law), Doughty

Answer 10

It seems that Parliament purposefully wanted to exclude cases such as (D) - in order to try and raise the bar

Question 11

Asmelash

Answer 11

s54(1)(c) - if D passes the first two limbs (LOC + QT) then the final limb is the “reasonable person” test, which can take into account some of D’s characteristics but not those which bear on their self-restraint

Question 12

Dawes

Answer 12

s55(6) - merely “looking for trouble” is insufficient to bar LOC, however, if D wants to incite violence then it will be barred

Question 13

Diminished responsibility

Answer 13

Homicide Act - s2 
Byrne 
Dowds
Lloyd
Osbourne

Question 14

Dowds

Wood

Answer 14

Generally intoxication will bar diminished responsibility

Alcoholism will give rise to a defence

Question 15

Byrne

Answer 15

Lord Parker CJ: an abnormality of mental functioning (replacing an abnormality of the mind) will be ‘a state of mind so different from that of a ordinary human beings the reasonable man would term it abnormal’
– uncertain if the same wide definition will continue

Question 16

Foye

Answer 16

The burden of proof is on the defence to the civil standard and the prosecution can put forward insanity where the D has claimed dim.R - the prosecution must prove the criminal standard

Question 17

AG Ref (No. 1 2004)

Answer 17

Reversing the burden of proof is not contrary to Art 6 ECHR

Question 18

Diane Pretty v DPP

Nicklinson v MOJ

Answer 18

Although suicide itself is no longer a crime, it is still an offence to assist or encourage - neither CL necessity nor ART 8 ECHR can provide an exception; the courts have persistently held that it is for the legislature

Question 19

Unlawful Act Manslaughter (involuntary)

Answer 19

There must be an act which is in itself unlawful (St Andrew v DPP)
The act must be ‘dangerous’ in the relevant sense (Church)
It must be ‘directed’ at the victim (Dalby)
It must be the cause of death (Williams)

Question 20

Read v Coker

Tuberville v Savage

Answer 20

Common assault - must have to apprehend the immediate prospect of harm
Words can negative

Question 21

Andrews v DPP,

Lamb

Answer 21

The act MUST amount to a crime e.g. driving is not a crime, but carelessly or negligently is

It is not an unlawful act if the accused has a defence e.g. consent or self-defence

Question 22

Church

Newbury and Jones

Answer 22

(ii) the unlawful act must have been dangerous - test is in Church ‘a sober and reasonable person would have recognised the risk of some harm therefrom, albeit not serious’ – it must be physical harm and it is not necessary to foresee the type of harm
- The test is objective x

Question 23

Dawson

Watson

Answer 23

D cannot have foresight of certain injuries i.e. those he can’t see e.g. a weak heart

However, if someone is visibly frail then this type of injury may be foreseeable

Question 24

Goodfellow, dismissing Dalby

Answer 24

(iii) the unlawful act has to be aimed at someone, albeit not specifically the victim, but the chain of causation must not be broken

Question 25

Pagett, Latiff

Williams

Answer 25

‘But for’ test – did D cause the death through is unlawful act?

Causality will be made out if harm was foreseeable

Question 26

Cato
Kennedy No.2
Rias

Answer 26

When D injects V then usually constructive manslaughter

Supply of drugs is not the cause, V’s injection is a NAI

D cannot be a party to an unlawful act as injecting is not unlawful

Question 27

Manslaughter by gross negligence

Answer 27

1. D owed V a DOC (Litchfield),
2. D breached that DOC (Bateman),
3. The breach of the DOC caused V’s death (Adomako)
4. The breach of the DOC was “grossly negligent” (Adomako)
   - – entirely objective test i.e. no foresight

Question 28

Hood, Litchfield, Stone and Dobinson

Answer 28

A DOC can arise in fiduciary relationships e.g. doctor/patient, close relatives, employer, employee – or someone can assume a responsibility which will see a DOC imposed

Question 29

Adomako, Bateman

Answer 29

The breach must be below what is “fair and reasonable” (B)

Or, the “reasonably competent”

– The breach MUST have caused V’s death

Question 30

Adomako, Bateman

overruling Seymour

Answer 30

Gross negligence goes beyond the civil standard and it is a jury question – Caldwell reckless is now irrelevant per Seymour

Question 31

Misra, Surivastava

Answer 31

It was questioned whether GNM was sufficiently certain so as not to contravene Art 7 ECHR - held that yes:
1. A negligent breach of a DOC owed to V, 2. Circumstances so reprehensible so as to amount to g. negligence, 3. The breach of the DOC was a substantial cause of death

Question 32

Lidar

Answer 32

Possible that there is an offence of ‘reckless manslaughter’ where there was a high probability of death or serious injury - reckless is given its ordinary meaning

Question 33

Cotswald Geotechnical Holdings

Answer 33

Corporate manslaughter — the offence is only committed if activities are substantially controlled by senior management, no SP – incl. employer/employees, police, etc.