Homicide Flashcards
A person is classed as a human being when capable of independent existence. Killing of a foetus is not murder
A-G’s Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936.
Mercy killing cases:
Kay Gilderdale
Francis Inglis
R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice
Denver Beddows
Even when there is medical evidence to show an abnormality of mental functioning, other circumstances should be considered
R v Sanders
Just because a medical condition appears in medical dictionaries/ lists, does not mean it can be relied on and vice versa
Dowds
medical evidence is a practical necessity of the defence of diminished responsibility
Bunch (following Byrne and Dix)
medical condition must substantially impair:
substantial should be given its normal meaning
Golds
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
R v Khan (Dawood)
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
Blackman
Intoxication alone is not sufficient for an abnormality of mental functioning
Dowds
In cases of intoxication and claimed DR, jury must consider all evidence (checklist a-f) - individual context
Stewart
DR and mercy killing
Tanya Clarence
Anthony Mann
DR and battered women’s syndrome
PMS turned her into a ‘raging animal each month and forced her to act out of charatcer’
Smith
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)
Ahluwalia
Duffy
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.
Ibrams
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
Thornton
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
Ahluwalia
Successful SD plea in relation to killing abusive partner - but there was an immediate risk of death
Elizabeth Hart-Browne
Loss of control two case studies
Sarah Sands
Anthony Bird
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
Dawes
Practical application of s.55 (qualifying trigger) will inevitably be difficult
Clinton
no fear of violence or sense of being seriously wronged meant no qualifying trigger (father soiled himself)
Zebedee
Justifiable sense of being seriously wronged is judged objectively - crying baby does not fit requirement
Dougherty
End of a relationship would not normally amount to a qualifying trigger
Dawes
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.
Dawes
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
Clinton
Sexual infidelity could be considered when deciding how an ordinary person would respond even though it cannot count as a qualifying trigger.
Clinton
Gross negligence manslaughter:
- restaurant owners switching ingredients
- Building site supervisor
- Step parent and drowned child
- medical manslaughter cases
Mohammed Zaman
Harun Rashid
Kelvin Adsett
Paul Smith
Honey Rose David Sellu (consultant specialising in colorectal medicine including surgery)
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…
Adomako 1994
Misra 2004
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…
Adomako
Wacker
Duty of care to someone you may reasonably foresee to be harmed. Eg. electrician should leave house safe for householder in….
Prentice
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
Evans
Were D’s actions/ omissions so bad as to deserve a criminal conviction
Adomako
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)
Adomako and Misra
AG Reference (no 2 of 1999)
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)
David Sellu
Jury should be guided as to difference between gross and everyday negligence. Gross = truly exceptionally bad.
CA in David Sellu
Challenged convictions on the ground of incompatibility with art7 ECHR - GNM so unclear in its foundation (circular Adomako test). Failed
Misra and Srivastava
Idea of ‘badness’ / a fifth element (CPS cling onto this but it is not law)
Rowley
