Homicide Offences Flashcards
Bland (1993)
Law of murder triggered when someone is brain stem dead.
Attorney General’s Reference (no 3 of 1994)
Victim must be a reasonable person in being, defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend and child died, held unborn babies would not be people.
Aluhwalia (1992)
Defendant was abused by husband for ten years until one night she poured petrol over him and set it alight, killing him. Loss of control wasn’t sudden and temporary therefore provocation wouldn’t apply.
Thornton (1992)
Defendant suffering from battered woman syndrome killed her husband, held: time delay won’t always rule out provocation, but loss of control must still be proved.
Doughty (1986)
Defendant killed his young child after being triggered by its incessant crying, held: the crying could be a trigger for provocation
Smith (Morgan) (2000)
Defendant who had a depressive illness killed his drinking partner, held: mental characteristics can be taken into account in assessing the gravity of the provocation and the reaction of the defendant.
Clinton (2012)
“In reality, the greater the level of deliberation, the less likely it will be that the killing follows a true loss of self control”
Camplin (1988)
Defendant’s age was related to the degree of self control expected over provocation
Morhall (1995)
Someone’s characteristics can be taken into account if they relate to how provocative words/acts will be to the defendant. Characteristics are excluded where they only affect tolerance and self restraint.
Smith (Morgan) (2000)
Defendant killed neighbour for a trivial reason, House of Lords allowed defence due to underlying mental disorder.
Dowds (2002)
Defendant was an alcoholic, court of appeal said alcoholism wasn’t a recognised medical condition unless it leads to some other kind of harm.
DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)
Defined unlawful act manslaughter, if d did an act which was intentional, unlawful, dangerous and which caused death,
Andrews v DPP (1937)
Act must be unlawful rather than lawful but negligently performed
Franklin (1883)
Act must be criminally unlawful rather than a civil wrong
Church (1965)
Objective test, would all sober and reasonable people inevitably recognise some harm resulting from the act?
Dawson (1985)
Defendants wished to rob petrol station with imitation firearm, threatened petrol station attendant who died of a heart attack. D could not have known that V had heart problems, reasonable man wouldn’t have had that knowledge either.
Watson (1989)
During burglary D became aware that V was old and frail, the reasonable man would therefore also have had this knowledge.
Ball (1989)
Distinguished from Dawson and Watson, drew a distinction between facts concerning the vulnerability of the victim and facts concerning the inherent dangerousness of D’s act, for dangerousness “intention, foresight or knowledge is irrelevant”
Mitchell (1983)
Defendant started fight in post office, elderly woman was crushed to death, unlawful act need not have been directed at the victim.
Attorney-General’s reference (no 3 1994)
Confirms dangerous act need not have been aimed at victim.
Adomako (1995)
Gross negligence manslaughter - D must have owed b a duty of care, the breach of the duty must have caused V’s death and the breach must have been so serious that it could be classified as gross negligence and therefore a crime.
Misra (2004)
“Gross negligence” is vague and uncertain term, the element of circularity could be seen to breach article 7 of the human rights act.
