Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CRIMINAL > Homicide > Flashcards

Homicide Flashcards

1
Q

Homicide definition

A

The death of a human being within the Queen’s peace where the death can be attributed to the conduct of one or more human beings.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Human being

A

Foetus is not a human being until it is born fully and has an existence independent of the mother. A-G’s Ref. (No 3 of 1994)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

A-G’s Ref (No 3 of 1994)

A

D stabbed mother when she was pregnant with intent to cause her GBH but V died a few weeks after birth from effects of injury sustained when stabbed in the womb.
House of Lords rejected ‘double transferred malice’. Not guilty of murder.
Guilty of constructive manslaughter: post-natal deaths resulting from pre-natal injuries fall within homicide. Would only be murder if D inflicted pre-natal injury intending to cause the child to die after birth or be born with serious injury.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Death

A

Bland - Destruction of brain stem (leading to brain-death condition) is death. Persistent vegetative state is not death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Causation

A

Pagett - attribute causal responsibility to the blameworthy agent. If D places V in a situation where third party conduct killing V is justified then D will be responsible for V’s death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Pagett

A

D used V as a human shield so when the police returned fire, V was killed by a police bullet. Policeman’s act was not ‘free, deliberate or informed’ and therefore did not break the chain of causation. Attribute causal responsibility to the blameworthy agent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Kennedy (No 2)

A

D handed V syringe full of heroin, V self-injected and died. V’s conduct was novus actus interveniens: voluntary and deliberate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Dhaliwal

A

V committed suicide after enduring long-term physical abuse by D.
Manslaughter conviction quashed as charge was that last abusive act by D caused death rather than arguing overall abusive conduct was the cause of death. Latter argument might have succeeded.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Gibbins and Proctor

A

D guilty of murder on basis of deliberately failing to feed child V. D owed V a duty to act, and omission to do so can be regarded as causing death.
Omissions liability found only where D is under a duty to act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Dyson

A

D must cause or accelerate the death of V.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Year and a day rule

A

Abolished by the Law Reform Act 1996 since it was unfair for homicide offenders to be excused because medical treatment kept V alive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

White

A

Need factual causation - D poisoned V but she died of an unrelated heart attack so D’s act was not a ‘but for’ cause.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Lowe

A

Confines unlawful act/constructive manslaughter to acts rather than omissions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Evans

A

D contributed to the dangerous situation in the Miller sense by supplying the heroin to her half-sister V and failed to summon medical help when she recognised overdose symptoms. Convicted of gross-negligence manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Bland

A

Lord Goff: removal of life support is an omission rather than an act - failure to suppress the underlying cause.
Medical professionals relieved of duty to sustain V’s life if it is in V’s best interests for the life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

The Queen’s Peace

A

S9 OAPA 1861: murder or manslaughter committed by a subject of the Crown abroad may be tried and punished in England.
Rowe: only possibly meaning of ‘outside the Queen’s peace’ is those who have taken up arms against the Crown.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Murder definition

A 
Causing death with the intention to kill or inflict GBH on any person.
Direct intent (acting in order to kill/cause GBH or killing/causing GBH as a means to another end (insurance bomber case) or oblique intent (Nedrick and then HoL in Woollin - virtual certainty test)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Cunningham 1982

A

Proof of intent to cause GBH is enough for murder conviction.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Original ‘malice aforethought’ for murder

A

Express and implied malice are equal to direct and oblique intent.
Constructive malice abolished by s1 Homicide Act 1957.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Law Commission recommendation on MR for murder

A

Person who caused death only intending to cause serious injury should be guilty of second degree murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Bollom test

A

Evaluation of whether harm is serious must be made with regard to V’s age and vulnerability.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Matthews and Alleyne

A

D threw V into a river, mid-winter flood, despite being aware that V could not swim. V drowning was a virtual certainty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Doctrine of double effect

A

Where a doctor administers pain relieving treatment with the side effect of accelerating death, oblique intent may not apply - Bland.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Law Commission suggestion for oblique intent.

A

D must only THINK death is a virtual certainty and prosecution need not prove that death actually was a virtual certainty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Problems with constructive liability for murder

A

D is held liable for full consequences of actions even though only intended a lesser degree of harm.
Suggests that by intending serious harm D has crossed a moral threshold and it’s ok to hold D liable for death.
‘Fair labelling’ problem in failing to distinguish between intending different degrees of harm.
Violates autonomy if D intended to cause GBH and could not possibly have foreseen death as a result.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Mandatory life sentence FOR

A

Intentional taking of life merits an unyielding, draconian response.
Needed as a deterrent.
Government oppose reform - do not want to show leniency.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Mandatory life sentence AGAINST

A

Fails to distinguish between different degrees of culpability, i.e. premeditated brutal killings and mercy killers
Spencer: jury should be given power to add ‘extenuating circumstances’ to a guilty verdict for murder so judge does not have to impose mandatory life sentence.
Murder convictions also apply in joint enterprise liability when D did not even intend GBH, but foresaw that a co-participant might harbour such intention.
Law Commission suggest mandatory life sentence should be reserved for new proposed offence of first-degree murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Mandatory life sentence

A

Minimum term to be served in prison.
Considered for release by Parole board.
Released on license but this can be revoked by an administrative decision.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Voluntary manslaughter

A

Killings which would be murder but for legally recognised extenuating circumstances which make the killing less culpable.
Committing prima facie murder with either partial defence of loss of control (s54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009) or diminished responsibility (s2 Homicide Act 1957) or pursuant to a suicide pact (s4 Homicide Act 1957)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Loss of Control

A

Replaces old defence of provocation.
S54 C and J Act 2009: D’s acts/omissions in relation to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control; Loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger; Reasonable person of D’s sex and age in the circumstances might have reacted in a similar way to D
S55: Meaning of qualifying trigger.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Old defence of provocation

A

Inadequate because at its core was a ‘sudden and temporary loss of self-control’ triggered by anger - Why should anger be a defence to murder? Anything said or done could qualify as provocation.
Alleged provocation didn’t even have to be wrongful - i.e. a crying baby in Doughty reduced the sentence to 5 years.
Loss of control outlines set situations in which loss of self-control will be a defence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Gender imbalance in provocation.

A

Men and women react differently to provocation. Men are more likely to respond suddenly, falling within old defence of provocation, whereas women are more likely to control themselves at the time and react later.

33
Q

Duffy 1949

A

Abused wife killed husband in his sleep. For defence of provocation it had to be a ‘sudden and temporary loss of control’ so that D was ‘not master of his or her mind’

34
Q

Ahluwahlia 1993

A

Set fire to her husband after years of abuse in arranged marriage. Defence of provocation failed since the loss of control was not ‘sudden’ enough, however was allowed defence of diminished responsibility.
Based on idea that provocation should lead to a ‘heat of the moment’ attack. Any delay suggests a cold, premeditated act of revenge.

35
Q

Morhall, Luc Thiet Thuan

A

For defence of provocation, reasonable man would not be endowed with characteristics such as intoxication, particularly aggressive or ill-tempered character.

36
Q

Subjective element in new ‘loss of control’

A

D’s acts/omissions in relation to the killing must result from D’s loss of self-control.
Need causative link.
Cocker - mercy killing at request of V, doesn’t often fall under loss of self-control.
Need not arise from human agency - could be a natural event.
Can arise from a mistake on D’s part, even if the mistake is induced by alcohol.
Cumulative impact of earlier instances of provocation is relevant.

37
Q

Richens

A

Under provocation and presumably now loss of control, awareness of the nature and quality of one’s actions and the consequences would not preclude a defence.

38
Q

S54(2) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

A

Doesn’t matter whether or not loss of control was sudden.
However any lapse of time can be evidence of planning and premeditation in the same way as for provocation.
Must still be genuine loss of self-control.

39
Q

S54(4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

A

No loss of control if D ‘acted in a considered desire for revenge’ - Clinton ‘revenge’ being a ‘deliberate and considered decision…one that has been thought about by D’

40
Q

Qualifying trigger

A

Loss of self-control has a ‘qualifying trigger’ if:
1. It was attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V
AND/OR 2. It was attributable to things said or done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and gave D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
Designed to limit the scope of the defence compared to old defence of provocation.

41
Q

Fear of serious violence

A

Applies where a violent reaction was too severe to be covered by self-defence.
S55(6)(a) Fear of serious violence disregarded if it was caused by something D said or did to incite violence from V to provide an excuse for his own violence. i.e. no self-induced loss of self-control.
Subjective standard applied - if the fear is genuine it doesn’t matter that it was irrational or unreasonable.

42
Q

Dawes 2013

A

Fact that D was behaving badly and looking for trouble does not necessarily engage s55(6)(a) - this only applies if D intended for actions to provide him with an excuse or opportunity to use violence.

43
Q

Sense of being seriously wronged by things said or done

A

S55(6)(b) Sense of being seriously wronged is not justifiable if D incited the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence.
“Justifiable” is an objective test - sense of being seriously wronged must be reasonable - however it is unclear whether D’s circumstances are to be taken into account.
S55(6)(c) Excludes ‘sexual infidelity’ - stupid exclusion when the cases it is designed to exclude would fail on the objective limb of whether reasonable person would react in the same way.

44
Q

Mohammed

A

‘Honour killing’ case: D killed daughter V after discovering her with her boyfriend in her bedroom when he had forbidden the continuance of the relationship and according to D’s faith this disobedience was a breach of V’s religious obligation.
Provocation not allowed. Could succeed on loss of control if individual circumstances are considered in whether D has a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. However continuance of relationship might not be considered a thing of ‘extremely grave character’

45
Q

Clinton

A

No definition of sexual infidelity. To avoid illogical distinctions, section 55(6)(c) is to be interpreted as excluding sexual infidelity if it is the only qualifying trigger.
Irrational to allow a stalker who finds V having sex a defence of loss of control, but to exclude V’s actual partner?
V taunted D about his failed suicide attempts as well as her sexual infidelity - V’s confession of sexual infidelity was relevant to overall qualifying trigger so loss of control should not have been withdrawn from the jury.

46
Q

Objective standard for loss of control

A

A reasonable person of D’s sex and age in the circumstances would have reacted in a similar way.
Circumstances include all circumstances leading up to the killing apart from those relating to D’s tolerance and ability to exercise self-restraint.
So battered woman syndrome might not be taken into account.

47
Q

Morhall

A

D was a glue-sniffer taunted about that characteristic - characteristic also happened to reduce capacity for self-control. This can be taken into account in the objective test.

48
Q

Asmelash 2013

A

D’s drunkenness is not to be taken into account if it only relates to his capacity for tolerance/self-restraint. Conduct judged by reference to the sober reasonable man. Different if D is an alcoholic taunted about alcoholism.

49
Q

Diminished responsibility

A

D must be suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which
1. Arose from a recognised medical condition
2. Impaired D’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self-control
AND 3. Provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in relation to the killing - i.e. cause/significantly contribute to D’s acts/omissions.

50
Q

Dowds

A

D killed partner; both were binge drinkers. Acute intoxication is not a recognised medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility. Presence of a recognised medical condition is a necessary but not always sufficient element of diminished responsibility.

51
Q

Dietschmann

A

D was heavily intoxicated but also suffering from an adjustment disorder after bereavement. No requirement that the abnormality of mind was the sole cause of killing Even if D would not have killed had he been sober, this does not necessarily preclude defence of diminished responsibility - just need to show that an abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired D’s responsibility.

52
Q

Involuntary manslaughter

A

External elements are present for murder but D lacks intention to kill/cause GBH
1. Constructive/unlawful act manslaughter
2. Gross negligence manslaughter
3. Reckless manslaughter
Complete sentencing discretion for the judge.
Based on chance - basically D was just unlucky that death resulted.

53
Q

Constructive/unlawful act manslaughter

A

Requires 1. an unlawful act 2. which causes death 3. must be an act which is criminal per se and 4. must be dangerous
D must intend to do unlawful act.
Must have MR and AR for unlawful act and an absence of defences.

54
Q

Franklin

A

D threw a beer crate into the sea killing V - act must be criminal, no liability for manslaughter on basis of mere civil law wrongdoing.

55
Q

Lowe

A

D wilfully neglected her child V, failing to arrange for medical treatment - neglect falls under gross negligence manslaughter, requires an ACT of commission for unlawful act manslaughter.

56
Q

Andrews v DPP 1937

A

D committed offence of dangerous driving causing death of V. Must be an act which is criminal per se - i.e. not just criminal because of the way you are doing it like dangerous driving.

57
Q

Lamb

A

Two boys playing with revolvers, but neither anticipated the revolver revolving and a bullet being fired. Therefore no assault because V did not anticipate unlawful violence being used. No unlawful act to base manslaughter charge on.

58
Q

Andrews 2002

A

V consented to recreational injection of insulin by D and died. Consent was legally irrelevant because it was a strict liability offence - unlawful act manslaughter conviction upheld.

59
Q

Slingsby

A

Vigorous sexual activity, punching V’s vagina causing internal injuries (signet ring) - V had consented and neither anticipated the possibility of ABH - no unlawful act.

60
Q

Church 1966

A

‘unlawful act must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise it as an act which must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm resulting therefrom albeit not serious harm’
Act must be dangerous though D himself need not perceive the danger - reasonable man test.

61
Q

Dawson

A

D used imitation firearm during a robbery and V had a heart attack and died. Reasonable person in Church test, knowing what D knows or ought to know, would not have foreseen harm occurring.
Couldn’t rule out possibility that the heart attack might have been unrelated.

62
Q

Watson

A

V, an old man, died from a heart attack when burgled by D. Given age of V, reasonable person would have foreseen risk of harm - objective test includes knowledge gained during criminal activity.

63
Q

Ball

A

D mistakenly thought he had loaded a blank knowing that he had a mix of blanks and live cartridges in his pocket. Reasonable man would appreciate the objective danger.

64
Q

Goodfellow

A

No need for unlawful act to be directed at actual V.

65
Q

JM and SM

A

V, a bouncer, dies of heart condition in a fight. Sufficient for D to foresee risk of SOME harm suffered by V, but doesn’t have to foresee the exact manner of death.

66
Q

Arobieke

A

Must actually BE an unlawful act - threat of serious violence and terrifying V is not enough.

67
Q

Mallett

A

No threat of serious violence but D was still convicted of manslaughter.

68
Q

DJ and others

A

Must be the unlawful act which CAUSES death - if it is an earlier act which is not unlawful then this is not enough, even if followed by an unlawful act.

69
Q

Gross negligence manslaughter

A

Where D’s basic conduct is not criminal.
Requires no advertent wrongdoing.
Enough to cause death by doing or omitting to do something in circumstances which reveal a clear failure to exhibit minimum standards of competence or care.
Objective standards of care.

70
Q

Stone and Dobinson

A

Incompetent, undertook to look after V. Lack of skill or incapability of performing task is no excuse if you have assumed responsibility for V’s welfare.

71
Q

Adomako

A

Anaesthetist D, didn’t notice that oxygen tube disconnected, V died.

  1. D owed V a duty of care
  2. D breached that duty of care
  3. Breach of duty caused death
  4. Degree of negligence was bad enough to justify criminal conviction. Question for the jury.
72
Q

Misra and Srivastava

A

Held that the test for gross negligence was sufficiently certain to comply with the right to fair notice Art 7 ECHR.
Must be an objective risk of death.

73
Q

Corey

A

V attacked and ran away and later collapsed and died. Might not have died ‘but for’ the affray and having to run away. However the unlawful act was not a DIRECT enough cause.

74
Q

Reckless manslaughter

A

Foresight that conduct may unjustifiably/inexcusably kill or seriously injure V.
So theoretically covers cases where D knowingly takes an unjustifiable risk of causing GBH but is not grossly negligent.

75
Q

Infanticide

A

Defined in Infanticide Act 1938
When D, mother, kills V, her child under 12 months old, while balance of mind is disturbed due to not having fully recovered from effect of giving birth OR due to effect of lactation resulting from birth of child.
No need for clinical disorder as in diminished responsibility - just need evidential issue as to balance of mind.
In theory pressure from introduction of V into D’s domestic environment do not count but in practice the distinction is hard to draw.
Gore.

76
Q

Causing the death of a child or vulnerable adult

A

Defined in Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
V must be a child or vulnerable adult.
D must be in the same household, with frequent contact with V.
D will be guilty if he caused death of V OR was or ought to have been aware of risk of serious harm to V, failed to take reasonable steps to protect V from risk AND unlawful act occurred in circumstances which D foresaw or ought to have foreseen. (Objective recklessness)
Created to deal with cases where couldn’t be proven whether mother or father killed child V.

77
Q

R v Khan

A

Causing death of a child or vulnerable adult.
Sufficient for V to be ‘an adult who is utterly dependent on others’
Negligence based standard - includes wilful blindness.

78
Q

Law Commission ladder principle

A

First Degree murder - intentional killings, killings with intent to cause serious injury when killer was aware of the serious risk of causing death.
Second Degree murder - killings intended to cause serious injury; killings intended to cause injury, fear or risk of injury, where killer was aware of serious risk of death; killings currently covered by voluntary manslaughter
Manslaughter - gross negligence manslaughter; killing by committing a criminal act intending to cause injury; killing by committing a criminal act where D was aware of a serious risk of injury.

79
Q

Golds

A

Held that “substantial” for purposes of diminished responsibility means significantly/appreciably contributing rather than more than minimal. Different judges adopt different directions for jury.

CRIMINAL (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions