Homicide Offences Flashcards
Murder
There must be a killing of a person (human being)
The killing must be unlawful (actus reus and mens rea fulfilled and SD not available)
D must have caused death (D must be both factual and legal cause of death)
The killing must take place at a time of peace (excludes the killing of an enemy during time of war)
D must intend to kill or cause GBH (malice aforethought)
Malice aforethought
No requirement for premeditation or ill will. D need only intend to kill or cause GBH (serious harm).
Intention for murder
Direct intention to kill
Direct intention to cause GBH
Oblique intention to kill (death a virtual certainty as a result of D’s conduct and D appreciated that certainty)
Oblique intention to cause GBH (serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s conduct and D appreciated that conduct
Loss of control (partial defence if successful they will still be liable for lesser offence of voluntary manslaughter)
D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self control
The loss of self control had a qualifying trigger
A person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self- restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in that way.
Loss of self control
More than an irritation or even serious anger, requires D to lose ability to reason clearly
Loss of self control need not be sudden (I.e can be a history of DV) however any delay between the qualifying trigger and reaction can be taken into account
Although need not be sudden, it must be actual
Qualified triggers
Fear trigger (whether D actually feared the use of violence and whether what they feared was serious violence)
Anger trigger:
- responded to something said or done
- What was said or done was an extremely grave character
- What was said or done had caused the D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged)
Limitations on triggers
- if fear or anger is incited by the D then trigger may not be satisfied. Limited to where D has purposefully manipulated the victim into acting
- if D has invited the thing said or done for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence, then D cannot claim to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
- Where sexual infidelity is the sole thing said or done it is to be disregarded
- where sexual infidelity is an essential part of the context in which the loss of control occurred it is not to be excluded where grave enough to amount to a trigger
- sexual infidelity is not excluded from the objective test (last limb or loss of control)
Diminished responsibility
A defence of partial insanity providing a justification for D who is suffering from an abnormality of the mind but not a total loss of control
- D must suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning (departs from that of an ordinary, reasonable person)
- The abnormality must arise from a recognised medical condition (D must provide psychiatric evidence and then this is a question for the jury)
- The abnormality must cause a substantial impairment
- The abnormally provides an explanation for the killing
Substantial impairment
It does not mean a more than trivial impairment. Abilities that must be impaired:
- to understand the nature of D’s conduct
- to form a rational judgement
- to exercise self control
Other principles for DR
intoxication cannot amount to a recognised medical condition. However alcohol dependency syndrome or brain damage arising from the same can
Jury can still consider a pre-existing condition which has been triggered by D
Where there is uncontroversial and uncontested medical evidence that D satisfied the defence, jury cannot convict for murder and judge should withdraw a murder conviction from the jury
Unlawful act manslaughter
D must intentionally do an act (an omission cannot form the basis and would be gross negligence manslaughter)
The act done is unlawful (civil wrong cannot amount to an unlawful act nor an offence satisfied by proof of negligence or a strict liability offence. The act need not be violent. No requirement for unlawful act to be directed at the victim)
The act is objectively dangerous (all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise that it must subject the other person to risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm)
The act has, in fact and law, caused death
Objectively dangerous
Anything the reasonable person would have gleaned watching the events unfold
The same knowledge the D had at the time of the offence including any preparations D has made
The reasonable man does not make unreasonable mistakes
Gross negligence manslaughter
D owes a duty of care to the victim (question of law for the judge)
D breaches that duty of care
The breach involves a serious and obvious risk of death that was reasonably foreseeable
The breach of duty causes the death
D’s conduct can be characterised as grossly negligent (conduct that is so bad that it should be categorised as criminal)
