Murder Flashcards
What is the defintion of murder?
Lord Coke: The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.
What is the actus reus of murder?
Unlawful killing, reasonable person and under the king’s peace.
What is the mens rea of murder?
Malice aforethought, express or implied.
When can the prosecution be brought?
The prosecution can be brought any time after the death of the victim. However, after 3 years, then the consent of the Attorney- General is required. This is stated in Law Reform Act 1996.
What are the five common law duties?
- Contractual duty (seen in R v Pittwood)
- Relationship (seen in Gibbins and Proctor)
- Failure to minimise risk (seen in Miller)
- Voluntary duty (seen in Stone and Dobinson)
- Public position (seen in R v Dytham)
R v Pittwood
Defendant was employed by a railway company to operate a level crossing. He opened the gate to let a cart through and then failed to put it back down when he went on break, a horse and cart crossed the track and was hit by a train. Both horse and driver were killed. It was held that the defendant was under a contractual duty to close the gate. Therefore, this was enough for the actus reus of murder.
R v Gibbins and Proctor
Defendants, mother and father, failed to feed their 7-year-old daughter. As a result, she died of starvation due to neglect. The defendants were found guilty of murder as the parents had a relationship duty.
R v Miller
Defendant had been out drinking and went back to the house he was staying at with a lit cigarette in his hand. This started a small fire, he woke up and saw this, went into another room and went back to sleep. Defendant failed to minimise risk by calling the fire brigade when becoming aware of the fire, creating a dangerous situation and therefore, liable of breaching the duty.
R v Stone and Dobinson
Stone and Dobinson (D’s) took in Stone’s sister who had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia. They took her in and agreed to look after her. However, she was found dead in her bed in appalling conditions. Stone and Dobinson were liable for the death as they assumed a responsibility to help her after taking her in.
R v Dytham
Defendant was a police officer, who stood by whilst a bouncer kicked a man to death. He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public officer. It was found that an offence of a misconduct can be committed by an omission.
What are the rules of legal causation?
Thin skull rule (R v Blaue)
Medical intervention (R v Cheshire)
Intervening acts (R v Roberts)
More than minimal - Deminis Principle (R v Kimsey)
What are the rules of factual causation?
But for test (R v Pagett)
AR: Unlawful
Killing may be lawful if:
- in self defence
- at war
- death penalty
R v Clegg
D was a soldier who was on duty at a checkpoint when a car failed to stop. D shot the driver 4 times, the last shot being fatal. Due to evidence stating that the car was 50 yards past the checkpoint when he shot the last shot, this was seen as excessive force and D was convicted of murder.
Re A (2000)
Conjoined twins where one depended on the other to live which made the other weaker. One could survive on their own if separated but the other could not. Parents refused to have them separated but judged granted permission for them to be separated. Lawful killing of one of the babies as judged granted permission to separate them.
AR: Killing
Can be committed by an omission.
- Intentionally accelerating death is still murder such as ‘mercy killings’ and euthanasia.
Inglis (2010)
D was convicted for murdering her son. He has suffered injuries which made him undergo surgery that left him in a vegetive state. Doctors were convinced he was going to recover. D was convinced that this was permanent and wanted to end his suffering. She injected him with a lethal dose of heroin with intention to kill.
Omission
Failure to act.
R v Miller
AR: Human Being
A foetus is not a human being. A braindead person is not a human.
Attorney- General’s Reference (1997)
D stabbed V who was 23 weeks pregnant. She recovered from the wound but gave birth prematurely, 7 weeks after the stabbing. Baby died 4 months later due to the premature birth. D was acquitted of the murder.
Malcharek (1981)
Switching off life support for a braindead person is not murder as they aren’t a reasonable person in being.
King’s peace
Killing of an enemy in the course of war is not murder. However, killing a prisoner of war is murder.
Causation
Must prove that the defendant is the factual cause of V’s death and also that there are no breaks in the chain of causation and that he is also the legal cause of V’s death using case law to support.
Specific intent
Murder is a crime of specific intent. This means that it can’t be committed recklessly and so has to have direct or indirect intention.
Express malice aforethought
Intention to kill.
Implied malice aforethought
Intention to cause GBH that leads to death.
Direct intent
Aim, purpose and desire to bring about the prohibited consequence. R v Mohan
Indirect intent
D does an act with the intention but a different consequence occurs.
Jury and Defendant both have to believe this for it to be virtually certain.
Vickers (1986)
D broke into V’s cellar in her sweet shop. When she found him, he punched her several times and kicked her in the head. She died as a result of the injuries. Intention to inflict GBH that results in murder is enough for the MR of murder.
Transferred Malice
Defendant can be guilty if he or she intended to commit a crime against a different victim. Seen in Latimer (1886) and Mitchell (1983) where accidentally hitting one person when you are meant to hit another was transferred malice.
Nedrick (1986)
‘virtual certainty’ test:
- do the jury feel that death or serious injury was the virtually certain result of the D’s voluntary act?
- did the D foresee that death or serious injury was the virtual certain result of his act?
if both parts answer ‘yes’ then the jury can reasonably infer that the D intended the consequences of his act.
Woollin (1998)
Confirmed that virtual certainty test in Nedrick - jury must find, rather than infer, intention.
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
A jury is entitled to find the existence of intention, but does not necessarily have to.
