Murder Flashcards
Definition of murder
“The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Kings peace with malice aforethought, express or implied”
AR elements of Murder
- Killing
- unlawful
- reasonable person in being
- under the king’s peace
5.Causation
- Killing
person must have committed an act or omission which leads to the death of another
where omissions amount to liability:
- Duty arising from Act of Parliament
e.g. failing to stop under Road Traffics Act 1988 - Duty because of relationship
R v Gibbins and Proctor - (neglected one of several children)
-Voluntary Duty
R V Stone and Dobinson - (volunteered to look after Stones’s elderly sister, died of malnutrition)
-Contractual Duty
R V Singh - (DofC for landlord to maintain property, faulty gas caused fire causing death of tenants)
-Public Duty
R V Dytham - (police man didn’t intervene in fight, V kicked to death)
-Duty because D set in motion chain of events
R V Miller - (cig lit mattress on fire, moved to diff room, convicted of arson)
-Duty to act
R V wacker - illegal immigrants in van case, had duty to open the vent, 60 died as a result of failure
-
- Unlawful
Most killing is unlawful, but some exceptions;
Re A conjoined twins = defense of necesity
- Reasonable person in being
generally any person
EXCECPT
fetuses in Utero and brain dead patients
Foetus -AGs ref 3 = states baby killed utero is not reasonable being BUT baby killed because of injuries in utero after born can be held as murder (YEAR AND A DAY RULE)
AG’s Ref 3
baby killed in utero cannot be murder as not a reasonable person in being
BUT
if baby dies as a result of injuries in utero after they have been born, can amount to murder (YEAR AND A DAY RULE)
- Under the King’s peace
Killing enemy of war = Legal
killing a prisoner of war = illegal
Killing in self defense = can be legal if satisfies the requirements of SD
Causation
must be the factual and legal cause of the death to another
Factual Causation
BUT FOR TEST - if outcome would’ve resulted regardless of Ds conduct, not the cause
R v White - (D put poison in drink, evidence that death was caused by heart attack – only attempted murder)
R V Pagett - (held gf in front of himself as shield, police shot but D convicted of Manslaughter)
Legal Causation
D is more than the ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence
Operating and Substantial Cause (legal causation)
-operating = doesn’t need to be made reason – R v Benge
-substantial = conduct must be more than “de minimis” - R v Kimsey (death by dangerous driving)
Thin Skull Rule (legal causation)
Take V as you find them - if V has something that makes injury more serious, D will still be liable for that injury
R V Blaue - V stabbed but refused blood due to religion, D still convicted of murder
Intervening acts/ novus actus interveniens (legal causation)
situations where the sole cause of death or injury is a completely independent act
there must be a direct link between D’s conduct to the consequence
Break in causation by intervening act (legal causation)
-R V Jordan (V stabbed by D, treated in hospital when healing with antibiotic causing allergic reaction – doctor ordered LARGE dose of same drug next day, V died – enough to break chain for D, stab wasn’t substantial cause of death)
-R V Smith (2 soldiers fighting, 1 stabbed = taken to medical who gave chest compressions making injury worse – stab wound still more than minimal cause)
-R v Cheshire (V shot and given tube down throat to breath – 2 moths later V died from complications left by the tracheotomy undiagnosed by doctors - D still held guilty even though stab wounds had virtually healed)
Victim’s own acts (legal causation)
If D causes V to act in a foreseeable way = D still the cause and wont break the chain
R V Roberts - (girl jumped from car going 30mph to avoid sexual advances from driver, D liable for ABH)
