Murder Flashcards
what is homicide?
the unlawful killing of a human being
what is murder/definition of murder?
murder is a common law offence
Lord Coke- “the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s (or Queen’s) Peace with malice afterthought, express or implied”
Actus reus of murder
- D killed
- Reasonable creature in being
- under the queens peace
- killing was unlawful
what are the mandatory life sentences?
18+ = must receive life sentence
10-17 = detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure at young offenders institution
judges have no discretion on sentence
what are the actus reas elements in Actus reas?
-D killed
-a reasonable creature in being
-under the queens peace
the killing was unlawful
can ‘killed’ be an omission? case?
can be act or omission but must cause the death of the V
R v Gibbins and Proctor - omission
causation and murder?
murder is a result crime, D not guilty unless his acts/omissions caused the death
what does ‘a reasonable creature in being’ mean?
a human being
can a foetus be considered as a ‘reasonable creature in being’?
no, the child has to have ‘an existence independent of the mother’ to be considered a ‘creature in being’.
what case shows that a foetus is not considered as a ‘reasonable creature in being’?
Attorney General’s Reference No 3
is a brain-dead person considered a ‘reasonable creature in being’?
if brain stems are not active, they are not a creature in being, Malcherek
what is under ‘the Queen’s peace’ mean?
killing of an enemy in war is not murder.
when is ‘killing’ not unlawful?
self-defence or defence of another in prevention of crime, killing is not unlawful.
what is the mens rea for murder?
‘malice aforethought, express or implied’, 2 different intentions; either intention to kill or intention to cause gbh
a person can be guilty even if they had no intention to kill
this was decided in R v Vickers (intention to cause GBH), later confirmed in R v Cunningham
when intending to inflict GBH and V dies, sufficient to imply malice aforethought
what is GBH?
DPP v Smith , ‘really serious harm’
oblique intent, foresight of consequences and murder?
D’s main aim was something different from causing death, but in achieving the aim a death is caused.
D does not have mens rea for murder unless he/she foresaw that they would cause death/injury
=foresight of consequences.
what are cases for foresight of consequences?
R v Moloney
R v Nedrick
R v Woollin
is foresight of consequences intention for murder?
not intention but evidence
jury not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that Death/serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of D’s actions and D appreciated this
transferred malice and murder?
general rule applies to murder, D will be guilty, the intention to kill is transferred. Gnango
