HOMICIDE AND PARTIAL DEFENCES TO MURDER

Question 1

What are the different types of homicide offences? Rank them in order of seriousness starting from the most serious.

Answer 1

• Murder
• Voluntary manslaughter
• Unlawful act
• Gross negligence manslaughter (involuntary manslaughter)

Question 2

What must the victim be for the actus reus of homicide to be fulfilled?

Answer 2

A human being

• at what point does a foetus become a human being
• for a newborn to be protected under the law of homicide, the child must be wholly expelled from mother’s body and be alive (R v Poulton)
• it must have an existence independent of mother (own circulation and drawn breath after birth)

Question 3

Re A (Children) (conjoined twins: surgical operation) [2000] 2 WLR 480

Answer 3

• question for court was whether separation should go ahead as it would result in death of weaker twin (Mary)
• is weaker twin human being?
• she had undeveloped heart, lungs and brain and depended on stronger twin for survival (Jodie)
• they deemed them both human beings
• due to her having existence outside of mother
• they are also alive and separate beings

Question 4

When does someone die? What case is this definition from?

Answer 4

• the irreversible death of the brain stem, which controls the basic functions of the body such as breathing
• when that occurs it is said that the body has died, even though by mechanical means the lungs are being caused to operate and some circulation of blood is taking place
• R v Malcherek and Steel

Question 5

How is causation established? Authority that supports this?

Answer 5

• the defendant’s act or omission must accelerate (R v Cheshire) death
• R v White [1910] where D poisoned mother’s drink intending to kill her
  -she suffered fatal heart attack and medical reports confirmed that death occurred due to heart failure unconnected to drink
• D was not liable

Question 6

What test is used to determine factual causation?

Answer 6

• But for test
• ‘but for D’s conduct would the victim’s death have occurred in the way it did?’
• R v White

Question 7

What does R v Pagett (1983) say about an act by some other person intervening between D’s conduct and end result?

Answer 7

‘In law the defendant’s act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the victim’s death, it being enough that his act or omission contributed significantly to that result’

Question 8

When will an argument of an intervening act not succeed in court?

Answer 8

1) despite being an intervening act, the injuries inflicted by D were still an operating and substantial cause of death

2) it there was an intervening act, it was foreseen by D or foreseeable by a reasonable person

This is a very hard thing to prove.

Question 9

What was the issue in R v Watson. [1989]?

Answer 9

• Defendants had thrown brick though window of 87 year old man
• he suffered from serious heart condition
• man awoke to them in his house, they verbally abused him and he died 90 mins later of heart attack
• D convicted of manslaughter but the conviction of murder was available to the jury as mentioned in appeal
• **appeal mentioned jury could use foreseeability test for this is to see if it was it foreseeable for the old man to have suffered heart attack
• (older vulnerable victims = foreseeable)**

Question 10

How did R v Smith enforce strictness around defendant not being able to argue medical negligence as an intervening act?

Answer 10

• V died at army medical centre after being stabbed by D
• medical treatment was thoroughly bad and may have affected V’s chance of recovery
• conclusion was that there is no break in causation if the injury they inflicted is still operating and substantial (more than minimal) at time of death

Question 11

If the victim happens to be suffering from an unusual physical or mental state/ belief which contributes to their death, is D still guilty? Name authority for this.

Answer 11

• Yes
• D must take their victim as they find them and must answer for consequences that follow
• it is their mere bad luck
• still liable for death
• R v Blaue
• D stabbed woman who refused blood transfusion because of religious beliefs
• if she had transfusion she would’ve survived

D liable for manslaughter

Question 12

Actus reus and mens rea of murder?

Answer 12

AR: requires D to cause death of a human being
MR: intention to kill or cause GBH (R v Moloney 1985)

Note: recklessness will not suffice as MR here

Question 13

What are the 3 reasons why someone would liable for an offence of voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 13

1) Diminished responsibility
2) Loss of control
3) Suicide pact

(Note: these are partial defences to murder only where AR and MR of murder are satisfied)

Question 14

Explain diminished responsibility.

Answer 14

• although D committed AR and MR, they were suffering from a recognised medical condition (not legal defence of insanity)
• defence need to prove that (on a balance of probabilities) that it is more likely than not that they were suffering from diminished responsibly

Question 15

What qualifies as a recognised medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility?

Answer 15

• schizophrenia
• phobic anxiety disorders
• bipolar affective disorder
• depression
• battered person syndrome
• mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance abuse

Question 16

What did the case of R v Lloyd [1967] find in regards to the ‘substantial’ impairment?

Answer 16

It must be more than trivial or minimal

Question 17

What is needed for the abnormality of mental functioning to fulfil to succeed as a defence?

Answer 17

It must be the reason for the homicide.

• need to establish causation
• e.g show that homicide would not have occurred if they mental abnormality was not present

Question 18

What does the defence of insanity need to prove?
(Note this is a complete defence unlike diminished responsibility)

Answer 18

• on the balance of probabilities, that they were suffering from a ‘disease of the mind’ causing a ‘defect in reason’ so that they either didn’t know the ‘nature and quality’ of the act or they did not know it was legally and morally wrong
• arises from M’Naghten’s Case (1843)

Question 19

In the old law of provocation, what were the two tests which the D has to overcome to use loss of control as a defence?

Answer 19

1) was D provoked by things said or done to suddenly and temporarily lose their self control? (Subjective test)

2) would the provocation have made a reasonable person lose thier self control like D did? (Objective test)
- where reasonable person is ordinary person of defendant’s age and sex

Question 20

What are the three elements which need to be satisfied for loss of control (s 54 and 55 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009) to be pleaded successfully?

Answer 20

1) D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from their loss of self control

2) the loss of control had a qualifying trigger

3) a person of D’s sex and age, with normal degree of older age and self restraint in same circumstances, might have reacted in same/similar way as D

Question 21

What is the meaning of ‘qualifying trigger’ in relation to s 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009?

Answer 21

1) D’s loss of self control was caused by D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or other person

2) D’s loss of self control was caused by circumstances of an extremely grave character (the circumstances facing the defendant were unusual)
- and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

3) combo of 1 and 2

Question 22

What doesn’t count as qualifying triggers?

Answer 22

1) D’s fear of violence is to be disregarded if it was caused by something D said or did for the purpose of an excuse to use violence

2) a sense of fear of being seriously wronged by a thing done/said not justifiable if D said or did for the purpose of an excuse to use violence

3) sexual infidelity is to be disregarded

Question 23

Outline the different types of unlawful homicide.

Answer 23

Question 24

What is the one exception where killing will be lawful?

Answer 24

• where D kills another person whilst acting in self defence or self defence of another person

Question 25

Can there be a defence of diminished responsibility if D is intoxicated?

Answer 25

• if killing occurs whilst voluntarily intoxicated and the intoxication brings on psychotic episode, there is no medical condition upon which defence of diminished responsibility is valid
• ask lecturer about when it is still qualified defence

Question 26

Summary of homicide

Answer 26

Question 27

R v Jordan

Answer 27

• victim died in hospital eight days after being stabbed by the defendant who was convicted of murder on the ground that he had caused the victim’s death.
• There was, however, evidence that the victim had been given poor medical treatment in hospital and that at the time of his death, the initial wound inflicted by the defendant had largely healed.
• on appeal, the defendant’s conviction was quashed.