how to get away with murder Flashcards
For an adult, the starting point for time within prison ranges from what for murder
15-30 years
For those 18 and under, the starting point in prison for murder is
12 years
whole life sentences
For whole life sentences (of which there are 68) these depend on premeditation/sadism and these people will never leave
• There are four starting points for offenders over 21
- Whole life order
- 30 years
- 25 years
- 15 years
aggravating factors
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
mitigating factors
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
sentencing guidelines
- 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
CPS guidelines
- 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
parole board
- 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
self defence
- 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
pre-emptive force
- 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
reasonable force
- 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
insanity - denial of the offence
- 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
denial of the offending
- 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
disease of the mind
- 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
defect of reason
- 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
D must know their act was wrong
- 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.’
automatism
- 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
how does automatism work
- 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
Bratty 1963 - automatism
- “no act is punishable if it is done involuntarily…which means an act which is done by the muscles without control of the mind.”
elements of automatism
- 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
what are the three partial defences
• 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
loss of control
- 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
diminished responsibility
- 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
best defence?
- 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.)
