Murder

Question 1

State the definition for Murder and whom it originated from.

Answer 1

‘The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied’
- Sir Edward Coke

Question 2

State which Act of Parliament outlines the punishment for Murder.

Answer 2

Homocide Act 1957
- Life sentence (25 years)

Question 3

State which 4 things need to be proven in order to be guilty of murder- in regards to the Actus Reus.

Answer 3

1) Defendant killed
2) Reasonable Creature in being
3) Under King’s peace
4) Killing was unlawful

Question 4

Explain how the Defendant’s killing must be proven, in order to be guilty of murder- in regards to the Actus Reus.

Answer 4

• Must be an Act or Omission
• Usually Actus Reus is a positive act, e.g. stabbing, hitting, shooting
• Omission (failure to act) can make person liable for offence of Murder. Shown in case: R v Gibbons and Proctor

Question 5

Explain how a ‘Reasonable Creature in Being’ must be proven, in order to be guilty of murder- in regards to the Actus Reus.

Answer 5

• Homocide offence cannot be charged in respect of killing a foetus
• Child has to have ‘existence independent from mother’. Shown in case: Attorney General’s Reference No.3 of 1994
• If V is ‘brain-dead’, doctors are allowed to turn off life-support machine without being liable. Shown in case: R v Malchereck

Question 6

Explain how the ‘Under the King’s Peace’ must be proven, in order to be guilty of murder- in regards to the Actus Reus.

Answer 6

• Killing of enemy under course of war isn’t murder

Question 7

Explain how ‘Unlawful Killing’ must be proven, in order to be guilty of murder- in regards to the Actus Reus.

Answer 7

Killing isn’t unlawful if:
- In self-defence
- In defence of another
- In prevention of another crime + D used reasonable force in these circumstances.

Question 8

Explain Express Malice Aforethought- in Regards to the Mens Rea of Murder.

Answer 8

• Intention to kill and bring around consequence
• Shown in case: R v Vickers (1957)

Question 9

Explain Implied Malice Aforethought- in Regards to the Mens Rea of Murder.

Answer 9

• Intention to cause GBH, D’s main aim wasn’t to bring about prohibited consequence
• Shown in case: R v Cunningham (1981)

Question 10

Explain Transferred Malice- in Regards to the Mens Rea of Murder.

Answer 10

General rules on Transferred Malice apply to Murder:
- if D fires shot at V1- misses, but hits and kills V2, D is guilty of murder of V2
- Doesn’t matter that they didn’t intend to kill V2, as intention to kill V1 is transferred.