Homicide

Question 1

A person is classed as a human being when capable of independent existence. Killing of a foetus is not murder

Answer 1

A-G’s Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936.

Question 2

Mercy killing cases:

Answer 2

Kay Gilderdale
Francis Inglis
R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice
Denver Beddows

Question 3

Even when there is medical evidence to show an abnormality of mental functioning, other circumstances should be considered

Answer 3

R v Sanders

Question 4

Just because a medical condition appears in medical dictionaries/ lists, does not mean it can be relied on and vice versa

Answer 4

Dowds

Question 5

medical evidence is a practical necessity of the defence of diminished responsibility

Answer 5

Bunch (following Byrne and Dix)

Question 6

medical condition must substantially impair:

substantial should be given its normal meaning

Answer 6

Golds

Question 7

smart to advise jury against attempting to be amateur psychiatrists - if there is undisputed evidence, they will probably wish to accept it, but it is their choice. Judge must make it clear that if there is a proper basis for rejecting the expert evidence, then the decision is the jury’s

Answer 7

R v Khan (Dawood)

Question 8

killing should be seen in overall context of medical condition - causal link it must be at least a significant contributing factor (meaning it does not have to be the only factor) for diminished responsibility to be possible

Answer 8

Blackman

Question 9

Intoxication alone is not sufficient for an abnormality of mental functioning

Answer 9

Dowds

Question 10

In cases of intoxication and claimed DR, jury must consider all evidence (checklist a-f) - individual context

Answer 10

Stewart

Question 11

DR and mercy killing

Answer 11

Tanya Clarence

Anthony Mann

Question 12

DR and battered women’s syndrome

PMS turned her into a ‘raging animal each month and forced her to act out of charatcer’

Answer 12

Smith

Question 13

Wanted to rely on provocation not DR due to the label that is given and the implications - but it was held that BWS was a depressive condition that could qualify for DR

Again wanted to use provocation but couldnt because BWS is about a slow cumulative effect (not a significant major trigger)

Answer 13

Ahluwalia

Duffy

Question 14

cannot use provocation/ loss of self control in BWS because there was the existence of a plan in this case.
Loss of control is too readily available to those with quick tempers / less accommodating to those who endure provoking circumstances.

Answer 14

Ibrams

Question 15

defence argues duffy to be wrong and provocation did not require sudden loss of control - too literal adoption of wording. But Beldam LJ said that sudden and temporary since duffy have been appropriate

Answer 15

Thornton

Question 16

Lord Taylor tried to reconcile ‘slow burn’ reaction with sudden and temporary but Duffy still good law. It is a matter for parliament if this is going to be changed. Addresses evidence that women frequently subjected to violence may not have a sudden loss of control - slow burn

Answer 16

Ahluwalia

Question 17

Successful SD plea in relation to killing abusive partner - but there was an immediate risk of death

Answer 17

Elizabeth Hart-Browne

Question 18

Loss of control two case studies

Answer 18

Sarah Sands

Anthony Bird

Question 19

provided there is loss of self control, it does not matter whether it was sudden or not - there may be a delayed reaction to extreme circumstances

Answer 19

Dawes

Question 20

Practical application of s.55 (qualifying trigger) will inevitably be difficult

Answer 20

Clinton

Question 21

no fear of violence or sense of being seriously wronged meant no qualifying trigger (father soiled himself)

Answer 21

Zebedee

Question 22

Justifiable sense of being seriously wronged is judged objectively - crying baby does not fit requirement

Answer 22

Dougherty

Question 23

End of a relationship would not normally amount to a qualifying trigger

Answer 23

Dawes

Question 24

Circumstances alone cannot amount to a qualifying trigger (must be something said or done). D was acting badly but looking for violence does not exclude the possibility of using the defence if there was also an independent trigger.

Answer 24

Dawes

Question 25

Sexual infidelity may be taken into consideration in deciding if there is a qualifying trigger where it is integral to the facts as a whole but it it is the only trigger s.55(6)(c) must apply (disregard it) Here, not allowed to rely on evidence of sexual infidelity - thought to have been misused in the defence of provocation formerly

Answer 25

Clinton

Question 26

Sexual infidelity could be considered when deciding how an ordinary person would respond even though it cannot count as a qualifying trigger.

Answer 26

Clinton

Question 27

Gross negligence manslaughter:
- restaurant owners switching ingredients

• Building site supervisor
• Step parent and drowned child
• medical manslaughter cases

Answer 27

Mohammed Zaman
Harun Rashid

Kelvin Adsett

Paul Smith

Honey Rose
David Sellu (consultant specialising in colorectal medicine including surgery)

Question 28

Current law on GNM in medical situations
Did D owe V a duty of care?
Did D breach that duty of care?
Did the breach cause V’s death?
Was the breach so grossly negligent to justify a criminal conviction?

This was confirmed in…

Answer 28

Adomako 1994

Misra 2004

Question 29

Lord MacKay - the need for ordinary principles of negligence to apply - duty of care generally to be given the meaning it has in tort

Confirmed in…

Answer 29

Adomako

Wacker

Question 30

Duty of care to someone you may reasonably foresee to be harmed. Eg. electrician should leave house safe for householder in….

Answer 30

Prentice

Question 31

existence of a duty of care is a question of law for the judge. Whether the facts establish this duty is up to the jury. In this case, the judge was wrong to leave it to the jury to decide whether to extend the category of persons by whom and to whom a duty was owed

Answer 31

Evans

Question 32

Were D’s actions/ omissions so bad as to deserve a criminal conviction

Answer 32

Adomako

Question 33

these cases confirmed that D’s conduct must give rise to risk of death - objective test for jury to decide.
If D did foresee… more like that will be charged with GNM but they need not foresee to still be liable (objective test)

Answer 33

Adomako and Misra

AG Reference (no 2 of 1999)

Question 34

Did D act is a way that was gross or severe - jury must apply own common sense to decide if line has been crossed(held that this direction was not enough)

Answer 34

David Sellu

Question 35

Jury should be guided as to difference between gross and everyday negligence. Gross = truly exceptionally bad.

Answer 35

CA in David Sellu

Question 36

Challenged convictions on the ground of incompatibility with art7 ECHR - GNM so unclear in its foundation (circular Adomako test). Failed

Answer 36

Misra and Srivastava

Question 37

Idea of ‘badness’ / a fifth element (CPS cling onto this but it is not law)

Answer 37

Rowley