Homicide - murder

Question 1

Gender differences in homicide statistics

Answer 1

• Year ending March 2022 – 72% victims were male, 28% female
• 92% suspects for female victims were male, 91% suspects for male vcitims were also male
• 33% female victims killed by partner/ex-partner

Question 2

Definition for murder

Answer 2

• Sir Edward Coke
  o When a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion (over 10) unlawfully killeth any creature under the King’s peace with malice aforethought

Question 3

Actus reus for murder

Answer 3

• Unlawfully causes the death of another under the King’s peace
• Beckford
  o UNLAWFUL – not unlawful killing if can plead self-defence
  o CAUSES DEATH – law of causation must be applied
• Law Reform (Year and One Day Rule) Act 1996
  o No longer a time limit on prosecutions for murder

Question 4

Actus Reus - the victim (2)

Answer 4

• Enoch and Poulton
  o Victim must be reasonable creature in rerum natura – child needs existence independent of mother (death in utero would not be murder)
• AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994)
  o Death due to injuries sustained in womb may be murder/manslaughter if there is mens rea intention present
  o In this case intention would require double transfer (transfer from intention to harm gf to foetus and transfer from foetus to child it would become) so not protected by murder

Question 5

Actus reus - accelerating death (2)

Answer 5

• Malcharek and Steel
  o Life ends when there is ‘brain death’
• Dyson
  o Victim was already dying from meningitis when D harmed them and injuries contributed to V’s death
  o Proper question is whether D’s actions accelerated the death when it was already dying from meningitis – still liable for murder if accelerated the death

Question 6

Actus reus - medical treatment which hastens death (4)

Answer 6

• Adams
  o If the first purpose of medicine – the restoration of health – can no longer be achieved, there is still much for the doctor to do, and he is entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain and suffering even if measures he takes may incidentally shorten life
  o Doctor charged with murder on basis had administered increasing doses of morphine to terminally ill patient – even if life is cut short by weeks/days it can still be murder
• Moor
  o If D’s purpose is proper medical treatment (pain relief) his purpose is not to kill and he should be acquitted even though he realises that death is a virtually certain consequence of the treatment
• Cox
  o What can never be lawful is the use of drugs with the primary purpose of hastening the moment of death
  o D doctor had been treating woman with extreme arthritis for number of years – woman makes clear she wishes to die and D gives her dose if potassium chloride which has no medicinal purpose or benefit – woman dies shortly after being given drug – had reached point where pain killing drugs were no longer effective – court makes distinction between giving medication to reduce pain knowing it shortens life and giving drugs with primary purpose of causing death – he had primary purpose of killing her
• Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
  o Doctors were not under a duty to continue treating or provide nutritional support as there was no hope of his recovering. Letting him die, an omission of a previous duty of care, would be no crime

Question 7

Actus reus - mercy killing, euthanasia, assisted suicide (4)

Answer 7

• Inglis
  o D’s son had been in accident and was in almost permanent vegetative state – D is his mother and is convinced he would rather be dead than be left in this situation – she injects son with heroin trying to kill him – she is caught and charged with attempted murder – sneaks back into hospital injects heroin and is successful in killing her son – argued doing what was right out of love and compassion
  o Law does not distinguish between murder for benevolent reasons and murder with malice
  o Unique situation of mercy killing is difficult for sentencing – in mercy killing there is often features of both aggravating (planning, premeditation) and mitigating (belief by offender that murder was an act of mercy) factors – in Inglis it said that in case of mercy killing we should ignore aggravating factors
• Pretty/Purdy
  o In both cases applicants wanted reassurance from CPS that their loved ones would not be prosecuted under Suicide Act 1961 if they assisted them to die
  o Pretty – suffered motor neurone disease and unable to end own life – husband prepared to help her end own life – CPS could not give assurance he would not be prosecuted
  o Purdy – wanted to travel outside UK to have life ended – CPS guidance unclear about whether partner would be prosecuted – guidelines needed updating
  o Assisting Suicide CPS Guidelines updated October 2014 – consequence of Purdy case
• Nicklinson
  o Mercy killing involves the perpetrator intentionally killing another person, and therefore, even where that person wished to die, or the killing was purely out of compassion and love, the current state of the law is that the killing will amount to murder or (if one or more of the mitigating circumstances are present) manslaughter
  o Infringing ECHR rights by having no laws on allowing euthanasia in this jurisdiction – law needed to change – court still rule mercy killing is murder
• CPS Updated Guidance on Mercy Killing – October 2023
  o Prosecution less likely to be required if:
  1. The victim had reached a voluntary, clear and informed decision that they wished to end their life
  2. Suspect motivated by compassion alone
  3. Victim physically unable to end own life
  4. Actions of suspect characterised as reluctant
  5. Suspect made genuine attempt to take their own life at same time
  6. Suspect reported death to police and fully assisted them in enquiries into circumstances and their part in it
  o Still problems that these guidelines may not be consistently applied

Question 8

Mens rea for murder (2)

Answer 8

• Malice Aforethought – Must show D unlawfully intended to kill (express malice) or intended to cause GBH (Implied malice)
• Intention – see previous notes on intention – Woollin test
• Vickers/Cunningham – Implied Malice
  o Intention to cause GBH on its own is sufficient for murder
• DPP v Smith
  o GBH means really serious harm

Question 9

Punishment for murder (2)

Answer 9

• Schedule 21 Criminal Justice Act 2003
  o Maximum sentence is life imprisonment – can range down from 30 years, 15 years, 12 years
  o Aggravating factors
  1. Significant degree of planning/premeditation
  2. Vulnerability of victim
  3. Mental/physical suffering inflicted on victim before death
  4. Abuse of position of trust
  5. Use of duress/threats to facilitate the commission of the offence
  6. Victim was providing a public service or performing public duty
  7. Concealment, destruction or dismemberment of the body
  o Mitigating factors
  1. Intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than kill
  2. Lack of premeditation
  3. Offender suffered a mental disorder lowering culpability
  4. Offender was provoked
  5. Offender acted in self-defence or in fear of violence
  6. Belief that murder was act of mercy
  7. Age of offender
• Coutts
  o Alternative verdict – must leave alternative of manslaughter available for the jury

Question 10

Attempted murder (4)

Answer 10

• Whybrow
  o D must intend to kill but intention to cause GBH is insufficient for attempted murder
• S1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
  o Must do an act that is more than merely preparatory to the killing
• Gullefer
  o Attempted murder is established when merely preparatory acts come to an end and D embarks on the crime proper
• Jones (Kenneth)
  o Pointed loaded gun with safety catch at another man, gf’s new lover – went out and purchased gun, put mask on, jumped into car which other person is and points gun at him – potential victim manages to escape – charged with attempted murder – argues he still had 3 more things to do before committed murder – needed to remove safety catch, place finger on trigger and pull it
  o Court said they do not use last act test – obtaining gun and sorting out disguise was clearly preparatory and getting into car had gone beyond stage of preparation – getting in car and pointing gun was sufficient for attempted murder charge

Question 11

Critical commentary for murder (5)

Answer 11

• Lord Hailsham – R v Howe (Mandatory life sentence argument)
  o Murder consists of a bundle of offences vastly differing in culpability so having a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for all murder offences is unjust
• Lord Steyn – Powell and English (The GBH rule)
  o Against GBH rule - Intention to cause GBH being sufficient for murder is controversial – a person convicted of murder having only intent to cause GBH was not ‘in truth’ a murderer
• Lord Edmund Davies (The GBH Rule)
  o Support for GBH rule - Intention to cause GBH is so severe that there is little consideration for whether death result or not. Therefore D should still be punished for murder
• Goff
  o English law should abandon intention to cause GBH or grave personal injury as constructing a sufficient mental element of murder
  o Instead the Scottish concept of wicked recklessness should be implemented as it prevents trying to expand the meaning of intention to fit certain cases and do not have to make dissertation about foresight of consequences
  o Wicked recklessness- intention to kill or indifference to death
  o Crime of murder should be the same in England and Scotland
• Ashworth
  o Law Commissions proposals to reform murder still remains ambiguous in the wording used and still favours a flexible approach whereas academics would prefer a fuller definition