Homicide cases Flashcards
R v Cunningham
Defendant attacked the victim with a bar stool and the victim died a week later. Defendant intended to cause GBH and not murder, so didn’t have the intention to murder
Importance of Cunningham
As to whether malice aforethought required planning and desire
R v Moloney
Defendant and stepfather in competition to load a gun faster and defendant won. Defendant was then challenged by the stepfather to fire the gun, charged with murder but appealed to House of Lords which was allowed as he did not intend to kill his stepfather
Importance of Moloney
Direct intention
R v Inglis
- Defendant was the mother of the victim and believed that son’s vegetive state would not be cured.
- Appeal against conviction of murder, saying what she did was an act of mercy. But court held that the motive was irrelevant as there was still intention to kill
R v Woolin
- Defendant threw his 3month old son against a hard surface and the baby died, charged with murder, and questioned whether he had intention for murder or GBH.
- Was not proved so left with oblique intention to cause GBH, but liable for murder.
- Applied the test of substantial risk. House of Lords held that it must be virtual certainty and not substantial risk
R v Jewell
- Defendant believed the victim had been threatening to kill him for a long time, and couldn’t eat or sleep, and killed the victim in a dream like state.
- Armed himself with weapons and items like money and passport and preparations before the killing, which could prove it was thought over and not in the heat of the moment.
- Meant that this was premeditated and was not in the heat of the moment
R v Dawes
- Defendant had an unhappy marriage, and left the flat, then changed his mind and returned, found his wife and another man asleep on the sofa.
- Awoke and started punching the other man and the man attacked him.
- Defendant fatally stabbed the man in the neck.
- Self induced the man punching the defendant. Didn’t think of using retaliatory violence
R v Mohammed
Defendant killed his daughter because she had a sexual relationship before marriage, and had a sense of being wronged due to his beliefs, but is not of extremely grave character
R v Clinton
Defendant had depression, and his wife told him about her infidelity and he lost control
R v Asmelash
- Defendant stabbed the victim and was intoxicated.
- Claimed victim was abusive towards him It was held that voluntary intoxication should not be attributed to the hypothetical person when assessing the third element of loss of control defence as it was only relevant to the defendant’s capacity of self control
R v Rejmanski & Gassman
- Held that mental disorder should not be attributed to the hypothetical person when assessing the third element of loss of control defence if it bears on the defendant’s general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint
R v Byrne
- Defendant raped, killed and mutilated the victim
- Suffering from not being able to control
R v Joyce and Kay
- Both defendants suffered from schizophrenia and killed the victim under the influence of drugs.
- Kay’s case was different from Joyce (Kay convicted of murder as his medical condition did not affect him as much) and Joyce was convicted of manslaughter
