Homicide Offences

Question 1

What is the actus reus of Murder?

Answer 1

D must cause unlawful killing; of a human being; under the Queen’s peace

Question 2

Which case established that to be protected by the law of homicide a child must be wholly expelled from the mother’s body and be alive?

Answer 2

R v Poulton: D strangled newborn but was in doubt that it had be fully born

Question 3

When does death occur?

Answer 3

According to R v Malcherek & Steel it is when there has been irreversible death of the brain stem

Question 4

According to R v Malcherek & Steel when will legal causation not be broken?

Answer 4

“the intervening act was foreseeable; and

the injuries caused by the defendant are still an operating and substantial cause of death”

Question 5

Which case established that factual causation is a question of fact for the jury to determine?

Answer 5

R v Clarke and Morabir; D were lodgers of V, V attacked in flat, lodgers called ambulance, up to jury to decide cause.

Question 6

Which case established that D’s acts must be a substantial/significant cause of V’s death, must pass the but for test?

Answer 6

R v White: D poisoned mother, mother’s died after consuming a small amount (not enough to kill her), death was due to heart condition, D found not liable.

Question 7

Which case established that acceleration must be significant?

Answer 7

R v Cheshire: D shot a man who underwent surgery as a result; two months later died due to scar tissue at the tracheotomy site obstructing his breath; D argued the negligent medical treatment broke the chain of causation.

Question 8

Which case established the D’s act need not be the sole cause of V’s death, it need only contribute significantly (allowing for multiple Ds)?

Answer 8

R v Pagett: resisting lawful arrest D used V as a human shield and shot at police; police shot back and killed V, self-defence was not an new intervening act

Question 9

Which case established the need to take V as you find them?

Answer 9

R v Blaue: D stabbed woman who then refused a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs; D held responsible for death despite medical evidence that a blood transfusion would have saved her life.

Question 10

Which case established that medical negligence will only break causation if ‘so independent of D’s acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that D’s acts were an insignificant contribution to death’?

Answer 10

R v Cheshire: D shot a man who underwent surgery as a result; two months later died due to scar tissue at the tracheotomy site obstructing his breath.

Question 11

What is the mens rea of Murder?

Answer 11

intention to kill; or intention to cause GBH.

Question 12

Which case established that killing with benevolent intentions is irrelevant?

Answer 12

R v Inglis: D overdosed son in vegetative state.

Question 13

What is the definition of Diminished Responsibility, according to s. 2 of Homicide Act 1957?

Answer 13

“D suffered from:
abnormality of mental functioning; which
arises from a recognised medical condition; which
substantially impaired D’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, and/or form a rational judgement and/or exercise self-control; and
provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing”

Question 14

Which case established that impairment must be substantial, ‘more than trivial or minimal’?

Answer 14

R v Lloyd: D strangled wife; medical evidence that he suffered from reactive recurrent depressions, and his mental responsibility was impaired by that abnormality to some extent, but not to any substantial degree.

Question 15

What is the definition of Loss of Control according to ss. 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009?

Answer 15

“Consider:
D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control; and
loss of control had a qualifying trigger, such as -
D fears violence from V against D or another identified person (s.55(3))
things done or said that (a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (s.55(4)); or
combination of the above (s.55(5))
Unless D caused any of the above (s.55(6))
3) a person of D’s sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances, might have reacted in the same/similar manner”

Question 16

Which case established that sexual infidelity will not amount to a qualifying trigger?

Answer 16

R v Clinton, Parker and Evans: three unconnected cases of husbands killing their wives and pleading loss of control: sexual infidelity may be relevant when assessing other possible qualifying trigger

Question 17

What is the actus reus of constructive manslaughter?

Answer 17

“Do an unlawful act;
act is dangerous; and
act causes V’s death”

Question 18

What is the actus reus of gross negligence manslaughter, according to R v Adomako?

Answer 18

"consider 5 elements:
Duty of care owed by D to V;
Breach of duty
risk that D’s conduct could cause death
evidence that breach did cause death
did D fall so far below the standards of the reasonable person in that situation that he can be labelled grossly negligent and deserving criminal punishment?"

Question 19

Which case established that whether a duty of care exists is for the jury once the judge has decided that there is evidence capable of establishing a duty?

Answer 19

R v Willoughby: D owned a pub and had become increasingly in debt; engaged V to help him set fire in it to claim insurance; building collapsed V died; convicted of gross negligence manslaughter

Question 20

Which case established the reasonable test when considering if conduct could cause death?

Answer 20

Which case established the reasonable test when considering if conduct could cause death?

Question 21

Which case established the reasonable test when considering if conduct could cause death?

Answer 21

None

Question 22

What are the elements to establish Corporate liability for manslaughter (Corporate manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007)?

Answer 22

“1) D is a qualifying organisation

2) Organisation owes a duty of care
3) Organisation breaches that duty
4) The breach caused death
5) Breach is a gross breach of that duty
6) Management failure by ‘Senior Management””

Question 23

What is a qualifying organisation according to the Corporate manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 s.1(2)?

Answer 23

"can be:
a corporation;
a department;
a police force; and
a partnership/trade union/employers’ association, that employs people"

Question 24

What is the definition of gross breach, according to the Corporate manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 ss.1(4)(b) and (8)?

Answer 24

“Conduct falls far below what can be reasonably expected in the circumstances.
Consider:
how serious failure was;
how much risk of death it posed;
attitudes that were likely to have encouraged any such failure or encourage tolerance of it;
Health and Safety Guidance; and
Other relevant matters “

Question 25

What are the penalties for corporate liability for manslaughter?

Answer 25

“Fine
remedy
name and shame”

Question 26

Can a director be disqualified?

Answer 26

Yes, under s.2 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 if convicted of indictable offence in connection with way company was managed.

Question 27

Can a director be convicted as an accomplice to organisation’s corporate manslaughter?

Answer 27

No according to s.18 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Question 28

What is the mens rea of gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 28

What is the mens rea of gross negligence manslaughter?