Homicide Offences Flashcards
Murder - AR
- Unlawful Killing - COKE
- Of a Human Being - POULTON
- Under the Queen’s Peace - COKE; R v CLEGG
Causation
D’s actions must accelerate and be a significant cause of the death
Factual Causation - (1) But for D’s Actions, V wouldn’t have died as and when he did - (2) Acceleration must be significant (more than minimal)
(1) WHITE
(2) CHESHIRE
Legal Causation - No legal causation if…
MALCHEREK & STEEL
- an event intervenes between D’s conduct and the end result unless E was foreseen or foreseeable by D
- An act by another person intervenes between D’s conduct and end result unless D’s conduct is still an “operating and substantial cause”
Legal Causation - D’s act or ommission need not be the sole or main cause, merely a significant contribution
PAGETT
If V refuses a blood transfusion this doesn’t break chain - Take V as you find him
BLAUE
Legal Causation - Death from fright: if foreseen or foreseeable, D can be legal cause of death - Vulnerability of Older persons
R v WATSON
Medical Negligence - If original harm is still an operating and substantial cause, the negligence doesn’t let the D off the hook
R v SMITH
- Second cause need to be So Overwhelming making the original wound a Mere Part of History
Medical Negligence - Negligence only breaks causation if it is so independent of D’s acts and in itself so potent that D’s act is insignificant
R v CHESHIRE
Murder “with Malice Aforethought”
Homicide Act 1957
Intent to kill or cause GBH
Partial Defence - Diminished Responsibility - s.2(1) Homicide Act - Abnormality of Mental Functioning
R v BYRNE - State of mind is so different from ordinary human beings
Partial Defence - Diminished Responsibility - s.2(1) Homicide Act - Impairment must be Substantial
R v LLOYD
Partial Defence - Diminished Responsibility - s.2(1) Homicide Act - Defence not excluded if D consumer Alcohol
R v WOOD
Partial Defence - Loss of Control - ss.54/55 Coroners and Justice Act - Must have a Qualifying Trigger - D should be judged according to the level of tolerance and self-restraint to be expected from a normal person of D’s age/sex
R v CAMPIN
Constructive Manslaughter - Unlawful Act - 3 cases
R v LAMB - Must be unlawful
DPP v NEWBURY - Any unlawful act
R v LOWE - Cannot be an omission
Constructive Manslaughter - Which is Dangerous - 2 cases - And causes V’s death
DPP v NEWBURY - Carries some risk of harm
R v BALE - Test - Would a Sober and Reasonable person think it was a dangerous act?
Constructive Manslaughter - MR
MR of the Unlawful Act
At least Reckless as to the Death or GBH
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - R v ADOMAKO - Duty of Care owed by D to V
WILLOUGHBY - Unless an established duty, it is a matter for the Jury
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - R v ADOMAKO - Breach of that Duty
KHAN - May be an Omission provided
- Special Relationship - STONE & DOBINSON
- Contractual Duty - PITTWOOD
- Statutory Duty
- Dangerous Situation created - MILLER
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - R v ADOMAKO - Risk the D’s conduct could cause Death - Objective Test
SINGH - Reasonable man able to foresee risk of death?
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - R v ADOMAKO - Evidence that Breach did cause Death
Then conclude - D’s standard was so far below that of a reasonable man in the situation that he can be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of crime punishment
Defence - Involuntary Intoxication - Drugs had an adverse affect
HARDIE
Defence - Involuntary Intoxication - Craving too strong to resist
TANDIE
Defence - Involuntary Intoxication - If MR is absent
KINGSTON - Succeed as a defence to Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Constructive Manslaughter
Defence - Voluntary Intoxication - Underestimate effects
ALLEN
Defence - Voluntary Intoxication - If MR is absent
Succeed as a defence only to crimes of specific intent (Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter)
