Law-Murder

Question 1

What is Lord Coke’s definition of murder?

Answer 1

The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the Queen’s peace, in the country of the realm, and with malice aforethought, express or implied

Question 2

What is the actus reus of murder, including cases?

Answer 2

An unlawful act (act against the law-R v Sutcliffe) or omission, that causes death (brain stem stops functioning) of a human in being (taken first attorney general reference no.3) under the queens peace (not during war- R v Clegg) in the country of the realm (England)

Question 3

Why is an omission able to make a person guilty of murder?

Answer 3

There are four main exceptions to the rule that an omission cannot make someone guilty of an offence (A contractual duty, a duty because of a relationship, a duty which has been taken on voluntarily, and a duty which arises because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events)

Question 4

What is a case for contractual duty?

Answer 4

Pittwood 1902 where the defendant was a gatekeeper at a railway crossing and left the crossing open when he left for lunch, and as a result, a cart crossing the line was hit by a train and a man was killed. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter based on omission, as he had a duty, due to a work contract, to act to close the gate, so omission was the actus reus

Question 5

What is a case for a duty because of a relationship?

Answer 5

Gibbins and Proctor 1918 where a girls father and partner separated her from their other children and deliberatley starved her to death. They were both convicted of murder and her father and his partner, who had taken on care of her, had a duty of care to feed her and so this omission formed the actus reus

Question 6

What is a case for a duty that has been undertaken voluntarily?

Answer 6

Stone and Dobinson 1977, where defendants living together with personal and intellectual difficulties, invited Stone’s anorexic sister to live with them, who later dies as she refused medical attention, and Stone and Dobinson made some effort to care for her, but didn’t call medical services. They were convicted of manslaughter as they took on a duty of care, but omitted to make arrangements for her while knowing she relied on them

Question 7

What is a case for a duty which arises because the defendant set in motion a chain of events?

Answer 7

Miller 1983 where the defendant was squatting in a house and fell asleep on a mattress while smoking, then awoken by flames but just moved to another mattress in another room to sleep on instead of putting out the fire, and as a result the house was damaged and he was convicted of criminal damage as he had a duty to minimise the harmful effects of the fire, which he omitted to do

Question 8

In the definition of murder, what is a creature in being?

Answer 8

A human being, which means for murder, they must exist independently from the mother with it’s own circulation, and so a foetus cannot be murdered, however if it is born alive but then dies, it can be murder/manslaughter

Question 9

What is a case for ‘human in being’?

Answer 9

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) (1997) where the defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend, causing her to give birth. The baby died at four months, as a result of being born prematurely. Defendant was charged with murder, but was acquitted, though the House of Lords held that, as the baby was born, there should be criminal responsibility, and the circumstances led to manslaughter due to the lack of mens rea

Question 10

Does someone that is brain dead count as a human in being?

Answer 10

It is probable that they do not count as a human in being, and doctors can switch off their life support machines without being liable for murder (Malcherek)

Question 11

What happened in the Malcherek case?

Answer 11

Doctors carried out many (but not all) tests for brain death. The court of appeal held that switching off the victim’s life support machine did not break the chain of causation, meaning the original attacker was liable for murder

Question 12

What is the year and a day rule?

Answer 12

It used to exist, and meant that death had to occur within a year and a day of the unlawful act, however medical treatments improved meaning people could live longer with their injuries before dying, so the rule was outdated, however now if the death is more than three years after the attack, the Attorney-General is needed to consent for the prosecution

Question 13

What must the prosecution show about the defendant’s conduct, in order to prove the consequence?

Answer 13

The factual cause of that consequence, the legal cause of that consequence, and that there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation

Question 14

What is factual cause?

Answer 14

The defendant can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct

Question 15

What are cases for factual cause?

Answer 15

Pagett (used girlfriend as human shield whilst he shot at police, who shot back and killed her. He was convicted of manslaughter), and White (put cyanide in mothers drink but died of a heart attack before drinking it, guilty of attempted murder as he wasn’t the factual cause)

Question 16

What is legal cause?

Answer 16

The defendant’s conduct must be more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence but it doesn’t have to be substancial

Question 17

What are cases for legal cause?

Answer 17

Cato (victim prepared heroin injection and defendant injected it into the victim, who then died so defendant charged with manslaughter) and Kimsey (established that more than one person that caused the death but a defendant can be guilty, even if their conduct wasn’t the only cause of death)

Question 18

What is the thin skull rule (including the case)?

Answer 18

‘Take your victim as you find him’ so defendant is guilty of murder, even if the victim had a hidden weakness than emphasised the effect of the defendant, causing death (eg Blaue where stabbing caused death as the victim was a Jehovas witness and so refused a life saving blood transfusion)

Question 19

What intervening acts can break the chain of causation?

Answer 19

An act of a third party, the victim’s own act, or a natural but unpredictable event

Question 20

What is necessary for an intervening act to break the chain?

Answer 20

Must be sufficiently independent of the defendant’s conduct, and sufficiently serious enough

Question 21

How can an act of a third party be an intervening act?

Answer 21

Medical treatment, but only if it is independent of the defendants acts, and is itself palpably wrong

Question 22

What cases show where medical treatment did not break the chain?

Answer 22

Smith (Two soldiers involved in a fight and victim was stabbed, and lung was pierced. Taken to medical station and died there an hour later as the medical officer didn’t realise the extent of the injuries, and was then given bad treatment, but original attacker was guilty of murder) and Cheshire (victim was shot in the thigh/stomach and died as a result of rare complications from a tracheotomy, which had not been spotted by doctors. Even though original wounds were no longer life threatening, tracheotomy given to help breathing problems and the rare complication were not seen as independent of gunshot wounds, so they were still the main reason for the tracheotomy and the chain wasn’t broken

Question 23

What case shows medical treatment that did break the chain?

Answer 23

Jordan (The defendant had stabbed the victim, who was taken to hospital. A week later, the wound was almost healed, doctors gave him an incorrect injection and he died. As the medical treatment was ‘palpably wrong’, there was no legal causation and the defendant was acquitted. The original injury was not the operating and substantial cause of death, but defendant is still guilty of wounding )

Question 24

How can the victim’s own act be an intervening act (including cases)?

Answer 24

If the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable way, then any injury to the victim will have been caused by the defendant (Roberts-girl jumped from car to escape defendants sexual advances) but it isn’t intervening if the victims act is unreasonable (Williams-The defendants gave a life to a hitch hiker and allegedly tried to rob him. The victim jumped from the car and dies from head injuries caused by falling into the road)

Question 25

What is the mens rea for murder?

Answer 25

Malice aforethought, express or implied

Question 26

What is express malice aforethought?

Answer 26

The intention to kill

Question 27

What is implied malice aforethought?

Answer 27

The intention to cause grievous bodily

Question 28

What case decided that you don’t need to intend to kill to be guilty of murder?

Answer 28

Vickers-broke into sweet shop and was seen the elderly shopkeeper who he knew was deaf, he then attacked and kicked her, then she died of her injuries-guilty with implied malice aforethought

Question 29

What case supports the decision in Vickers?

Answer 29

Cunningham-defendant hit victims head with a stool, killing them, but defendant said he hadn’t intended life threatening injuries-guilty as intention to cause really serious harm was sufficient as mens rea

Question 30

What does really serious harm mean?

Answer 30

In DPP v Smith it decided that it meant GBH

Question 31

What did Attorney General’s reference no.3 state about mens rea for killing a foetus?

Answer 31

It was not possible to have mens rea for murder or GBH of a foetus, as they are not living seperately from the mother

Question 32

What is oblique intent?

Answer 32

Where the defendant had no intention to kill or harm anyone, but death is caused as a consequence of their actions. It is only mens rea for murder if he foresaw (virtual certainty) that he would cause death or GBH (foresight of consequences)

Question 33

What is the starting point for foresight of consequences?

Answer 33

S8 of the criminal justice act 1967-basically meaning the defendant must intend or foresee a result

Question 34

What are the leading cases on oblique intent?

Answer 34

Woolin, but other cases have to be looked at to help understanding, as they came before Woolin, such as Moloney

Question 35

What happened in Moloney?

Answer 35

Defendant and stepdad were drunk at a family party and were talking/laughing. Defendant and victim had decided to see who was fastest at loading and firing a shotgun. Defendant was fasted and stepdad said he wouldn’t be able to pull the trigger, so without aiming, he pulled the trigger, and his stepdad was murdered-conviction was quashed at appeal

Question 36

What happened in Hancock and Shankland?

Answer 36

Defendants were miners on a strike, preventing another miner from going to work by pushing a concrete block off a bridge onto the road that he was driving on in a taxi, killing the driver. Trial judge used Moloney to direct jury and defendants were convicted of murder, but this was quashed at appeal

Question 37

What did Lord Scarman state about the guidelines in Moloney?

Answer 37

They were unsafe, misleading and defective as the word ‘probable’ wasn’t used-it needs to be known that the greater the probability of the outcome, the more likely it was foreseen/intended

Question 38

What were the guidelines given in Moloney?

Answer 38

Was the death/GBH a natural consequence of the defendants act. and did the defendant foresee the consequence

Question 39

What case then cleared up the confusion of the previous two cases?

Answer 39

Nedrick, which created the virtual certainty test, as the previous rules were too complicated for juries

Question 40

What did Lord Lane say?

Answer 40

Jury can’t find intention unless they are sure that the death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of defendants actions and that the defendant realised this was the case

Question 41

What two new questions were given?

Answer 41

How probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendants voluntary act, and did the defendant foresee the consequences

Question 42

What happened in Woolin?

Answer 42

Father (defendant) became annoyed at his three month old son, as he had choked while being fed. Defendant then the the baby towards his pram, but he hit the wall instead and died

Question 43

How did the law change after Woolin?

Answer 43

House of Lords approved of Lord Lane’s direction in Nedrick, but said questions needed to use the word ‘find’ instead of ‘infer’. Jury are not entitled to ‘find’ intention, unless outcome is virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated this

Question 44

What happened in Matthews and Alleyne?

Answer 44

Threw someone of bridge that they knew couldn’t swim. Confirmed that jury are entitled to find intention but they don’t have to…conviction was upheld

Question 45

What is transferred malice?

Answer 45

The principle that the defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim

Question 46

What is a case where transferred malice occurred?

Answer 46

Latimer-Defendant aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub as he had attacked him. The belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. Latimer was guilty of an assault against the woman, although he had not meant to hit her

Question 47

In what other case was transferred malice accepted?

Answer 47

Mitchell-Defendant tried to push his way into a queue at the post office. He hit an elderly man who tried to tell him off, but he fell back into an elderly lady who fell and died of her injuries. Defendant convicted of unlawful act of manslaughter

Question 48

What happened in the case of Pembliton?

Answer 48

Transferred malice did not occur as the mens rea was for a completely different type of offence (intention to hit people could not be transferred to the window)

Question 49

What is a more recent case of Gnango?

Answer 49

‘Bandanaman’ and Gnango had a street fight with guns.
Bandanaman fired first and Gnango returned fire.
Bandanaman’s next shot hit a passer-by, causing death. Gnango guilty due to transferred malice

Question 50

What is coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

Answer 50

The two elements must take place at the same time

Question 51

What murder case, and what manslaughter case are examples for coincidence of actus reus and mens rea?

Answer 51

Thabo Meli v R (murder) and Church (manslaughter)

Question 52

What report discusses the need for reform of the law of murder?

Answer 52

In 2006 the Law Commission published a report ‘murder, manslaughter and infanticide’. In this they pointed out that there were many problems with the law on murder

Question 53

What were the general comments from the report on the law of murder?

Answer 53

“The law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations. Some of its rules have remained unaltered since the seventeenth century, even though it has long been acknowledged that they are in dire need of reform. Other rules are of uncertain content, often because they have been constantly changed to the point that they can no longer be stated with any certainty or clarity”

Question 54

What existing problems with the law on murder did the Law Commission’s report list?

Answer 54

The law developed bit by bit in individual cases so is not a coherent whole. A defendant can be convicted of murder even if only intended serious harm. No defence available is excessive force is used in self defence. Defence of duress is not available for murder. The mandatory life sentence and the government’s sentencing guidelines do not allow sufficient differentiation in sentencing to cover the wide variety of levels of blameworthiness in the current law of murder

Question 55

What is one of the main areas where the bit by bit development by the courts has caused problems?

Answer 55

In the meaning of ‘intention’. Intention is a concept that affects all specific intent offences but most of the cases which have been hear by the House of Lords have involved murder

Question 56

What does section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 state?

Answer 56

It tries to make the law clear on intention. It states “A court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence- (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances

Question 57

What is one of the main problems with the law on intention?

Answer 57

The law on foresight of consequences. The House of Lords has tried on many occasions to explain what effect the foresight of consequences has. In Moloney it ruled that foresight of consequences was not intentions; it was only evidence from which intention could be inferred in accordance with section 8(b)

Question 58

How does the law on intention and foresight of consequences then differ from what was stated in Moloney?

Answer 58

In the later decision in Woolin, the House of Lords spoke about intention being found from foresight of consequences, which made the law uncertain. It isn’t clear whether there is a substantive rule of criminal law that foresight of consequences is intention, or if there is only rule of evidence that intention can be found from foresight of consequences

Question 59

How was intention and foresight of consequences then approached in Matthews and Alleyne?

Answer 59

The Court of Appeal said there was little to choose between a rule of evidence and one of substantive law, leaving it even more unclear

Question 60

What are the problems with the serious harm rule?

Answer 60

The Law Commission’s report ‘Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide’ pointed that when passing the Homicide Act 1957, parliament never intended a killing to amount to murder unless the defendant realised their conduct may cause death. They stated in their view the present offence of murder is too wide

Question 61

Why do the Law Commission believe the present offence of murder is too wide?

Answer 61

Under the present law on murder, a defendant is guilty if he had intention to cause GBH and actually causes the victim’s death. In some of these cases the defendant may not even realise the death could occur. Yet they are just as guilty of murder as someone who deliberately sets out to kill their victim

Question 62

What example did the law commission use to demonstrate their point about the serious harm rule?

Answer 62

“Defendant intentionally punches victim in the face. The punch breaks the victim’s nose and causes the victim to fall to the ground. In falling, the victim his their head on the curb causing a massive and fatal brain haemorrhage”. If the jury decided that the harm the defendant intended intended the punch to cause can be described as ‘serious’ then it would be murder, yet most people would agree this shouldn’t be the most serious offence of homicide and then defendant should not receive a mandatory life sentence for that

Question 63

Who else disagrees withe serious harm rule, apart from the Law Commission?

Answer 63

The problem was also pointed out by judges as far back as 1981. In Cunningham, Lord Edmund Davies said “It is strange that a person can be convicted of murder if death results from, say, his intentional breaking of another’s arm, an action which, while undoubtedly involving the infliction of ‘really serious harm’ and as such, calling for severe punishment, would in most cases be unlikely to kill”

Question 64

Why has the law on the serious harm rule not changed?

Answer 64

Although very critical of the law, Lord Edmund Davies felt any changes had to be made by Parliament, as the law had been the same for over 200 years so was wrong for judges to change such a well-established law. However, the Law Commission has made very specific proposals for how the law could be reformed

Question 65

What is the problem with the fact that there can be no defence where excessive force is used in self-defence?

Answer 65

The defence is available, so the defendant would not be guilty of murder, if the force was reasonable, however if excessive force is used in self defence or prevention of crime, they are guilty of murder. “All or nothing effect” is harsh in murder cases as defendant is either acquitted or given a life sentence. If justified in using some force but used more force than reasonable, this shouldn’t justify a life sentence

Question 66

What two cases highlight the problem of no defence being allowed when excessive force is used?

Answer 66

Clegg, and Martin (Anthony)

Question 67

What happened in the case of Clegg?

Answer 67

Defendant was a soldier on duty at a checkpoint in Northern Ireland when a stolen car came towards him at speed. Defendant fired at he car. His final shot his a passenger in the back and killed her. The evidence showed that he car had gone past the defendant by the time this last shot was fired. It was held that he could not use self-defence or defence of another as there was no danger when he fired that shot. The force was excessive in the circumstances and his conviction for murder was upheld

Question 68

What happened when the case of Clegg was appealed?

Answer 68

It was referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. On this occasion his conviction was quashed because new forensic evidence cast doubt on whether the fatal shot had actually been fired by Clegg

Question 69

What happened in the case of Martin (Anthony)?

Answer 69

Two burglars entered the defendant’s house in the night. The house was in an isolated place and had been burgled before. On this occasion the noise of entry woke Martin, who got up, armed himself with a shotgun, and without warning fired three shots in the dark. One of the burglars was killed. Martin was convicted of murder. His appeal on the ground of self-defence was rejected as the force was not reasonable. However, his conviction was reduced to manslaughter because of evidence that he was suffering from diminished responsibility

Question 70

Why were the cases of Clegg and Martin (Anthony) criticised?

Answer 70

Many people believe that a person who kills where he has an honest, but unreasonable, belief as to the degree of force needed is not as blameworthy as a ‘true’ murderer. It is unjust that such a person is found guilty of the same crime of murder and sentences to the same punishment

Question 71

What was the first change the government made to the law on murder that may give some defendants a defence in certain circumstances?

Answer 71

First the creation of the defence of loss of control (Coroners and Justice Act 2009) which can reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter if successful (can be successful is due to fear of serious violence but someone of the same age/sex as defendant must have reacted in the same way and may not have helped Clegg or Martin

Question 72

What was the second change the government made to the law on murder that may give some defendants a defence in certain circumstances?

Answer 72

The second change was made by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which gives a wider defence to householder where an intruder enters their property. They can use the defence of self-defence provided the degree of force was not ‘grossly disproportionate. For other cases, the degree of force used in self defence must not be ‘disproportionate’. Still probable that Martin would not be able to use the defence as shooting someone in the back is likely to be regarded as “‘grossly disproportionate’

Question 73

What example does the Law Commission’s report use for murder and duress?

Answer 73

“A taxi driver has his vehicle commandeered by a gunman who holds a gun to the driver’s head and tells him to drive to a place where the gunman says he may shoot someone. The taxi driver does as the gunman demands and the gunman goes on to shoot and kill someone” Under the existing law, duress is no defence to murder, so the taxi driver is an accomplice in the killing and could be convicted of murder, with a mandatory life sentence like the gunman

Question 74

What do the law commission propose about duress and murder?

Answer 74

They propose duress should be a complete defence to murder. However, a defendant claiming the defence would have to prove they were threatened with death/life-threatening harm, and had no realistic opportunity to seek police protection. They jury would also have to find that a person of ordinary courage might have responded in the same way as the defendant did by taking part in the commission of the crime

Question 75

What are the sentences for murder?

Answer 75

If a defendant aged 18 or over is convicted of murder, the judge has to pass a sentence of life. For offenders aged 10-17 who are found guilty of murder, the judge has to order that they be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. As judges have no discretion on the sentence to impose, it is a mandatory sentence and the judge cannot give a different sentence even if he feels the defendant is not as blameworthy as a deliberate killer, unlike with other offences. This is the reason doe the special defences (diminished responsibility and loss of control) to allow flexibility in sentencing

Question 76

What is a case to illustrate duress and murder?

Answer 76

Gotts, where the father of a 16 year old boy threatened to kill the boy unless he stabbed his mother. The boy did stab her and seriously injure her, but the injury did not kill her. He was convicted of attempted murder and because of the circumstances the judge put him on probation for three years. If it had resulted in death, the judge would have had to order the boy to be detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure

Question 77

What are minimum sentences?

Answer 77

In each case, the judge will impose a life sentence but will then state the minimum number of years the offender must serve before any application can be made for release on licence

Question 78

How have the sentencing problems been aggravated?

Answer 78

By the Government’s guidelines on these minimum sentences, as laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This gives three starting points for adult offenders

Question 79

What are the three starting points for minimum sentences for murder, for adult offenders?

Answer 79

Whole life term for exceptionally serious cases (eg pre-meditated/multiple victims/sexual or sadistic child murders/politically motivated). 30 years for serious cases such as murders of police/prison officers, murders involving firearms, sexual or sadistic killings aggravated by racial or sexual orientation. 15 years for murders not falling within the two higher categories

Question 80

Under the rules given by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, what minimum sentence would Martin (Anthony) have been given?

Answer 80

He would have had to be given a minimum sentence of 30 years. This is the same length of sentence that a contract killer who deliberately killed a victim would receive. The guidelines do not allow sufficient differentiation between levels of blameworthiness

Question 81

What are the law commission’s proposals for reform?

Answer 81

They proposed that murder should be reformed by dividing it into two separate offences: first degree murder, and second degree murder

Question 82

What would first degree murder cover?

Answer 82

Cases in which the defendant intended to kill. It would also cover situations where the defendant intended to cause serious harm and was aware that their conduct posed a serious risk of death

Question 83

What would second degree murder cover?

Answer 83

Cases in which the defendant intended to do serious injury but was not aware there was a serious risk of death

Question 84

Why do the Law Commission want to divide murder into two categories?

Answer 84

By dividing murder into two separate categories, the mandatory life sentence would apply only to first degree murder. Second degree murder would carry a maximum of a life sentence but would allow the judge discretion in sentencing

Question 85

How have the Government responded to the Law Commission’s proposals?

Answer 85

In July 2008, they issued a consultation paper ‘murder, manslaughter and infanticide: proposals for reform of the law’. It rejected the Law Commission’s proposal of completely reforming murder by making it a two-tier offence

Question 86

What part of the proposal for reform of murder did the Government accept?

Answer 86

The only area they accepted that reform was needed was the lack of a defence for those who use exessive force in seld-fefence. This reform was implemented as part of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Under this Act there is a defence of ‘loss of control’ where the defendant kills through loss of control due to fear of serious violence, and, where successful, reduces the murder charge to manslaughter-this may allow defendants in cases such as Clegg and Martin to have a partial defence to murder

Question 87

After the Homicide Act 1957, there is the Coroners and Justice Act 2009-what does this new Act not address?

Answer 87

It does not address the problems of no intent to kill, the difficulty of the meaning of intention, the lack of a defence of duress and the use of the mandatory life sentence, so these will continue to be problems in the law of murder

Question 88

What is euthanasia?

Answer 88

It is also known as ‘mercy killing’ and is where the defendant kills the victim because the victim is suffering through an incurable illness. Quite often, the defendant is the spouse or partner of the victim and has seen them suffering for a long period of time

Question 89

What is the current law on euthanasia in the UK?

Answer 89

If the defendant kills the victim because they can no longer bear to see the victim in such pain, then the defendant is guilty of murder (even if the victim begged the defendant to do it). The defendant will be sentenced to life imprisonment

Question 90

What case demonstrates the current law on euthanasia?

Answer 90

Inglis. The defendant was the victims mother. The victim was fit and healthy before getting into a fight/falling out an ambulance and left severely disfigured in need of long term dependant care. Defendant had previously had depression and was very distressed by the situation and tried to kill the victim but he was resuscitated but suffered further consequential deterioration, defendant was banned from visiting victim in hospital but returned and injected him with heroin again and he died, so she was convicted of murder with life imprisonment

Question 91

In the case of Inglis, what was the only way the courts could differ her sentence from a standard murderer’s sentence?

Answer 91

By giving a lower than normal minimum term of imprisonment before release on licence could be considered (five years)

Question 92

What was the decision in the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland?

Answer 92

In this country, although euthanasia is not allowed, doctors can withdraw treatment from patients in certain circumstances. They can withdraw treatment where a patient is in a persistent vegetative state, but they are not allowed to do anything positive to kill the patient-though it can be argued that it would be better to give a patient a drug that kills them painlessly rather than deprive them of food and drink

Question 93

What does the law say about helping someone to commit suicide?

Answer 93

There is a law against helping someone to commit suicide. The DPP is obliged by section 2 (1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to issue a code for Crown prosecutors giving guidance on general principles to be used when deciding whether or not to prosecute for aiding and abetting suicide

Question 94

What is a problem with the code given about whether to prosecute for helping someone commit suicide?

Answer 94

It did not cover all situations, and in R v DPP (2009), Mrs Purdy asked the DPP to issue guidance on this point. When they refused, she applied for judicial review to make the DPP set out guidance as to when prosecution for aiding and abetting suicide might be brought. The House of Lords held that the DPP had to issue guidance on this point

Question 95

Following the decision of R V DPP, what guidance did the DPP give for aiding and abetting suicide?

Answer 95

The policy guidance stressed that the Code for Crown Prosecutors had to be applied and this included the test of whether it was in the public interest to prosecute. Each case had to be considered on its own facts and merits. The policy also listed factors which tended to be in favour of prosecution and which factors tended to be against prosecution

Question 96

Despite the policy statement given by the DPP on aiding and abetting suicide, why was the issue raised again?

Answer 96

The issue was raised again in joint cases of R v Ministry of Justice, and R v DPP (2013) in which three applicants sought a judicial declaration. They wanted common law to recognise the defence of necessity applied to voluntary euthanasia, to give a defence to murder and said they had a right to end their own lives under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Question 97

What was the result of the cases of R v Ministry of Justice, and R v DPP (2013)?

Answer 97

In R v Ministry of Justice it was decided that only Parliament could make such a change. In R v DPP