how to get away with murder

Question 1

For an adult, the starting point for time within prison ranges from what for murder

Answer 1

15-30 years

Question 2

For those 18 and under, the starting point in prison for murder is

Answer 2

12 years

Question 3

whole life sentences

Answer 3

For whole life sentences (of which there are 68) these depend on premeditation/sadism and these people will never leave

Question 4

• There are four starting points for offenders over 21

Answer 4

1. Whole life order
2. 30 years
3. 25 years
4. 15 years

Question 5

aggravating factors

Answer 5

Planning or premeditation

Vulnerable victim due to age or disability

Mental or physical suffering to the V

Abuse of a prison of trust

Public service or duty

Concealing, destroying or dismembering the body

Question 6

mitigating factors

Answer 6

An intent to cause bodily harm rather than death

Lack of premeditation

D suffers from mental disorder which lowered his degree of blame

Provoked

Fear of violence or self-defence?

an act of mercy

Age of D

Question 7

sentencing guidelines

Answer 7

• Due to the seriousness of the offence, the approach and ability to sentence for Murder is defined in Law
• Following the plea of guilty or the D being found guilty, the judge may wish to take advantage of pre-sentencing reports such as medical or psychiatric reports to inform the sentence

Question 8

CPS guidelines

Answer 8

• Impact of the crime: family and friend statements, the judge will use these to assess the impact of the crime
• A life sentence always last for life, regardless of the tariff; D will only be released if they are no longer a risk to the public
• They are then subject to conditions on license

Question 9

parole board

Answer 9

• Make decision about the early release of certain prisoners and anyone sentenced to life imprisonment
• They act as a court, but do not hold public hearings and they have their own guidelines

Question 10

self defence

Answer 10

• AKA Public and Private Defence
• The defence will not apply to an offence committed without force, or in circs of prior fault
• D must have believed that force was immediately required in order to protect their interests
• The amount of force used but have been reasonable on the facts as D believed them to be

Question 11

pre-emptive force

Answer 11

• Devlin v Armstrong [1971]:force can be used to ward off an attack, as long as they honestly believed the attack was imminent
• Incredibly narrow – but is possible

Question 12

reasonable force

Answer 12

• The question of this issue is one of proportionality and even if it did equate to more force than was threatened the defence will be satisfied
• If unreasonable, the defence will fail on all elements
• Was the degree of force used by D objectively reasonable based on the subjective facts as they believed it to be?
• Should be noted, that the question is not one of the harm caused – but of the force used
• If D’s force results in an unreasonable harm, this does not negate the defence
• If unreasonable force, Defence will fail

Question 13

insanity - denial of the offence

Answer 13

• Where D claims to have not fulfilled all the elements due to the some malfunctioning of her body
• This needs to be an internal factor
• There are two areas; unfitness to please and insanity as a defence
• This is a denial of offending
• The D must on the balance of probs, prove they were insane

Question 14

denial of the offending

Answer 14

• The D must suffer from a disease of the mind
• Which caused a defect of reasoning
• This must have caused a lack of responsibility because D did not know the nature or quality of act or did not know it was wrong

Question 15

disease of the mind

Answer 15

• This can be mental or physical, as est in Kemp [1957 (congestion of blood)
• While medical experts will be used, the definition is legal
• It can be temporary, curable or long-lasting and permanent

Question 16

defect of reason

Answer 16

• Not absentmindness or apathy – Clarke [1972] – mild forgetfulness will not apply
• Merely means that the D was not able to reason effectively, due to the condition they suffered from
• D must not know what they were doing
• Reference to the physical conduct and not one of moral or legal issues
• Applies to delusions or times of being unconscious
• This is a denial of potentially the AR and MR

Question 17

D must know their act was wrong

Answer 17

• This applies when the D does not know their act was legally wrong
• In Windle [1953] where the D killed his wife with 100 aspirin – was held to be murder due to the fact he knew he was likely to ‘hang for this.’

Question 18

automatism

Answer 18

• AKA as ‘sane automatism’
• The D is making the claim that some external factor affected their body and caused them to lack voluntariness
• The claim of involuntariness = a lack AR = acquittal

Question 19

how does automatism work

Answer 19

• X overpowers D and manipulates them to plunge a knife into V
• Where D spasms uncontrollably, causing to strike V
• D reacts to a sudden noise
• Attack of a swarm of bees

Question 20

Bratty 1963 - automatism

Answer 20

• “no act is punishable if it is done involuntarily…which means an act which is done by the muscles without control of the mind.”

Question 21

elements of automatism

Answer 21

• Involuntary action arising from external source of reflex action (R v Kemp)
• Action was completely involuntary
• Automatism was not self induced
• It must be an external factor, which makes it different to insanity which requires there to be internal
• R v Quick established that it is for the jury to decide whether the defence has been mad out and that the D was genuinely made involuntarily

Question 22

what are the three partial defences

Answer 22

• Loss of Control
• Diminished Responsibility
• Suicide Pact
- These will not allow you to get away with murder but will reduce your sentence and therefore technically allow you to get away with murder

Question 23

loss of control

Answer 23

• When D kills as a result of their loss of control, due to violence, or a thing said or done which was so grave
• Must be a justifiable sense of being wronged
• Fear of serious violence – often used as a step down from Self Defence

Question 24

diminished responsibility

Answer 24

• D has a recognised medical condition which led to an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired their capacity and cause them to kill
• Insanity requires a defect of reason which completely undermines the ability to understand the nature and quality of their act
• However, DR asks for substantial impairment
• This is traditionally used as a ‘step down’ from insanity

Question 25

best defence?

Answer 25

• Self Defence gives the best chance of a full acquittal – but if the force or violence is pre-induced then the defence will not be applicable
• Insanity is significantly more obvious for everyone involved, but the penalties for succeeding are significantly more serious (it is also very difficult to prove if faked.)