Homicide - Murder Flashcards
The first element of the actus reus for murder “A human being is dead” but what qualifies as a human being?
What case brought about the definition of a “Human being”?
What definition do the court favour for when a human being is considered dead?
What case confirmed this definition?
A person becomes a human being once they can exist independant of their mothers womb
Attorney General’s reference no 3 of 1994
“Brain dead”
R v Malcherek and Steel
Explain how the “But for” test works?
What case example can be used for this test and what happened?
The but for test asks but for the defendants action would the victim have died as and when they did. If the answer is no then the defendant is liable.
R v White - White poisoned his mother but she suffered a fatal heart attack before the poison took effect. Since but for his actions she would have died as and when she did he could not be held liable
Explain the de minimis rule?
What case example can be used for this rule and what happened?
The de minimis rule requires that the defendants actions be more than the minimal cause of death
R v Pagett - Defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield while firing at the police who then returned fire killing her. He attempted to argue that since he didn’t directly kill her he should not be found liable. However the courts applied the de minimis rule and he was found liable as he was more than the minimal cause of death
“The injury must be the operating and substantial cause of death” - What cases show this element being used? (Hint: Talk about 2 cases)
R v Smith - Stabbed soldier was rushed to hospital where he was dropped three times, suffered a delay in getting treatment and subsequently received poor treatment and later died. Since the stab wound was still the operating and substantial cause of death at the time of death the defendant was still liable.
R v Jordan - Defendant had stabbed the victim who was taken to hospital and recieved days of treatment. He had nearly recovered when he was given an antibiotic he had previous had an allergic reaction to and died as a result. Since the stab wound was no longer the operating and substantial cause of death the defendant could not be held liable.
Explain the “thin skull” test?
What case can be used as an example of this test?
The “thin skull” test states that the defendant must take their victim and as and how they find them regardless of any physical or other conditions
R v Blaue - Defendant stabbed the victim who was a jehovahs witness, she later refused a blood transfusion that could have saved her life on the grounds of her religious beliefes. The defendant attempted to argue that her action of refusing treatment was an intervening act however the courts applied the thin skull test and stated that he had to take his victim and and how he found her making him liable for her death
What must an intervening act be to successfully break the chain of causation?
In what key case was the intervening act not sufficient?
It must be so extraordinary as to not be foreseeable
R v Roberts - Victim jumped from the defendant’s car as she feared he would sexually assault her, the court held that her reaction was foreseeable and was therefore not enough to break the chain of causation
What is the mens rea for murder?
Why does this definition cause some confusion?
The mens rea for murder is malice aforethought
The mens rea does not require malice or premeditation so it has caused confusion
What is direct intention?
What case stated that intention to commit GBH can be considered direct intention?
What is indirect intention?
In what case did the defendant pour parafin through a womans letterbox and what is it’s signifance?
Where the defendant directly intends to bring about the death of the victim and does what is neccesary to achieve it
R v Smith
The defendant forsees the consequences of his action but does not want such a consequence to happen
R v Nedrick - Jury can infer intention if they are confident the defendant realised the consequence was a virtual certainty
