LAWS1016 Murder

Question 1

Elements of Murder

Answer 1

AR

1. Result: death of the deceased.
2. Act / omission of the accused.
3. Causation

MR

1. Intent to kill, intent to inflict GBH, reckless indifference to human life.
2. Temporal coincidence

Question 2

Legal Causation Test

Answer 2

Whether D’s act was a substantial and operating cause of death (Royall).

Question 3

Act / Omission by 3rd Party

Answer 3

Generally, reckless / negligent / incompetent medical treatment will not be enough to break the chain of causation. However, medical treatment could be so ‘palpably wrong’ and in itself so potent of causing death, that it overwhelms D’s original act such that it can no longer be regarded as the substantial and operating cause (Evans and Gardiner).

[Smith] evidence that if victim had received immediate and different treatment, chances of survival would be as high as 75% (-).

[Jordan] victim basically healed, doctor administered antibiotics continuously despite substance intolerance discovered after initial doses (+).

Question 4

Natural Events

Answer 4

Ordinary operation of natural events will not break the chain of causation. However, extraordinary natural events might.

(Hallett) unconscious body died by rising tide (+).

Question 5

Refusal of medical treatment / rejection of medical advice.

Answer 5

Generally, refusal of medical treatment / rejection of medical advice will not be enough to break the chain of causation. However, if a jury finds that victim’s response to the accused’s conduct was unreasonable / disproportionate, then this means that the accused’s conduct was not a substantial cause of the deceased’s death. The D must take his victims as he finds them, with all special vulnerabilities.

(Blaue) jehovah’s witness religious belief, refusing blood transfusion not unreasonable (-).

[Bingapore] doctor advised to stay in hospital, discharged himself anyway, died because sudden hemorrhage, urgent care unavailable (-).

Question 6

Fright / Self - Preservation

Answer 6

Generally, if the victim’s apprehension of danger is well-founded and reasonable, then the victim’s acts done out of fright or in the interests of self-preservation in the face of violence will not break the chain of causation even though victim’s acts were voluntary. However, if a jury finds that victim’s response to the accused’s conduct was unreasonable / disproportionate, then this means that the accused’s conduct was not a substantial cause of the deceased’s death. The ‘reasonableness’ of the victim’s response will be assessed from the position of the victim, who may not make rational judgements when their state of mind is in ‘fright’.

(Royall) apprehension that she will be subjected to life-threatening violence, jumped from window (+).

(RIK) jumped on train tracks, open to the jury to conclude that response was reasonable, as a person in fear for his safety is under pressure to make a quick decision, which may not be irrational (+).

Question 7

Transferred Intention

Answer 7

if D intends to kill X specifically, but committed the actus reus against Y instead, the general intention to kill will be transferred.

Question 8

Reckless Indifference to Human Life

Answer 8

P must prove BRD that D knew / foresaw the probability (as opposed to possibility (Crabbe)) that his acts will result in death (as opposed to GBH (Royall)(Solomon)) but continued regardless.

Deliberate abstention from inquiry might be evidence of actual knowledge / foresight by the accused. A person cannot close his mind to a risk unless he first realizes there is a risk.

Actual knowledge / foresight necessary; imputed knowledge is insufficient; not an objective test of what a reasonable person ought to have known. (Crabbe) returned to bar by crashing car into it