Mens Rea of Murder

Question 1

What is the mens rea of murder stated as being?

Answer 1

‘malice aforethought ,express or implied’

Question 2

the mens rea of murder is stated as being ‘malice aforethought, express or implied’ what does this mean?

Answer 2

this means that there are two different intentions, either of which can be used to prove the defendant guilty of murder

• express malice aforethought (intention to kill)
• implied malice aforethought (intention of GBH)

Question 3

What is express malice aforethought?

Answer 3

an intention to kill

Question 4

Which is implied malice aforethought?

Answer 4

an intention to cause GBH

Question 5

If the mens rea for murder can be implied malice aforethought, what does this mean for a defendant?

Answer 5

that they can be guilty of murder even though they did not intend to kill

Question 6

What case decided that D could be guilty of murder even though they did not intend to kill?

Answer 6

Vickers 1957

Question 7

What happened in the case of Vickers 1957?

Answer 7

D broke into an old lady’s shop. V saw D, D hit V several times with his fists and kicked her in the head. V died as a result of her injuries. COA upheld conviction of murder as where D intends to inflict GBH as it has always been sufficient in English law that it implies malice aforethought

Question 8

In what case did the HOL consider the same point as that in Vickers?

Answer 8

Cunningham 1981

Question 9

What happened in the case of Cunningham 1981?

Answer 9

D attacked V in a pub with a chair. V died from injuries. D convicted of murder. HOL dismissed appeal and held that the law was firmly established, intention of GBH is sufficient for murder.

Question 10

In which case did the HOL decide that ‘GBH’ has the natural meaning of ‘really serious harm’?

Answer 10

DPP v Smith 1961

Question 11

Under which case was it held that it was not possible for a defendant to have the mens rea to kill or seriously injure a foetus because a feats does not have a separate existence from its mother?

Answer 11

Attorney General’s Reference 1997

Question 12

Why was it held in Attorney General’s Reference 1997 that it was not possible for a defendant to have the mens rea to kill or seriously injure a foetus?

Answer 12

as a foetus does not have a separate existence from its mother

Question 13

The general rules on intention apply to what?

Answer 13

murder

Question 14

When is there a problem with proving intention?

Answer 14

in cases where the defendants aim was not to cause the death or serious injury of the victim, but in achieving the aim the death is caused

Question 15

in cases where the defendants aim was not to cause the death or serious injury of the victim, but in achieving the aim the death is caused, what is this referred to as?

Answer 15

oblique intent

Question 16

The defendant does not have the mens rea for murder under oblique intent unless what?

Answer 16

unless he foresaw that he would also cause death or serous injury

Question 17

What is the foresight of consequences?

Answer 17

When D can foresee his actions leading to a prohibited consequence

Question 18

What is the main rule under the foresight of consequences?

Answer 18

that foresight of consequences is not intention, it is only evidence of intention

Question 19

What happened in the case of Moloney 1985?

Answer 19

D shot and killed his step father in a drunken challenge to see who was quicker on the draw. It was held that foresight of consequence is only evidence from which intention may be inferred
manslaughter

Question 20

What happened in the case of Nedrick 1986?

Answer 20

D set fire to a house to frighten the women who lived there. A child died in the dire. COA suggested juries should ask themselves

• how probable was the consequences of D’s voluntary act
• did D foresee that consequence

conviction substituted with manslaughter after misdirection

Question 21

What were the 2 questions the COA suggested that juries should ask themselves in Nedrick 1986?

Answer 21

• how probable was the consequences of D’s voluntary act

- did D foresee that consequence

Question 22

in the case of Nedrick 1986 when did the COA say that the jury are entitled to infer the necessary intention?

Answer 22

when they feel sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s actions, and that D appreciated that this was the case

Question 23

In what case did the HOL approve the direction from the COA in Nedrick 1986 that the jury are only entitled to infer the necessary intention when they feel sure that death or serous injury was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s actions, and that D appreciated that this was the case?

Answer 23

Woollin 1998

Question 24

What did the case of Woollin 1998 disapprove of in Nedrick?

Answer 24

the use of the two questions…

• how probable was the consequences of D’s voluntary act
• did D foresee that consequence

Question 25

Why did the Law Lords disapprove of the 2 questions in Nedrick?

Answer 25

as they said that they blurred the lines between intention and recklessness

Question 26

What did the case Woollin 1998 modify from the Nedrick case of 1986?

Answer 26

they changed ‘infer’ to ‘find’

Question 27

in summary what was the conclusion under Woollin 1998 for the test for the foresight of consequences?

Answer 27

That the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that the death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and that D appreciated that such was the case

Question 28

the general rule on transferred malice applies to what?

Answer 28

murder

Question 29

Give an examples of transferred malice

Answer 29

if D fires a shot at V1 but misses and hits and kills V@, D is guilty of murder. It does not matter that he did not intend to kill V2. His intention to kill V1 is the transferred