Murder

Question 1

What is the actus reus of murder?

Answer 1

The unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace.

Question 2

What does ‘under the King’s peace’ mean in murder?

Answer 2

The killing must occur during peacetime, not in a context like war.

Question 3

What case law supports the requirement that the victim must be a human being?

Answer 3

Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) and Malcherek.

Question 4

Can killing be considered lawful in some circumstances?

Answer 4

Yes, self-defense, defense of another, or prevention of crime may make the killing lawful.

Question 5

Does the death of an unborn child count as murder?

Answer 5

No, a fetus is not considered a ‘human being’ until it is born and has a separate existence.

Question 6

What is factual causation in the context of murder?

Answer 6

Factual causation is established by the ‘but for’ test – but for the defendant’s actions, the victim would not have died.

Question 7

What case demonstrates the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 7

R v White and Pagett.

Question 8

What is legal causation?

Answer 8

Legal causation requires the defendant’s act to be more than a minimal contribution to the death and the operative and substantial cause of harm.

Question 9

Which case illustrates that the defendant’s actions must be more than a minimal contribution?

Answer 9

R v Kimsey.

Question 10

What does the term ‘operative and substantial cause’ mean?

Answer 10

The defendant’s act must be a significant factor in causing the victim’s death.

Question 11

What is an intervening act in the context of causation?

Answer 11

An act or event that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s actions and the victim’s death.

Question 12

How can medical intervention affect the chain of causation?

Answer 12

Medical intervention can break the chain if it is ‘palpably wrong.’

Question 13

Which case demonstrates that medical treatment usually does not break the chain of causation?

Answer 13

R v Cheshire.

Question 14

Can a victim’s own actions break the chain of causation?

Answer 14

Yes, if the actions are not foreseeable or are deemed unreasonable.

Question 15

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 15

The defendant must take the victim as they find them, including any pre-existing conditions.

Question 16

What is the mens rea required for murder?

Answer 16

‘Malice aforethought’ – an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 17

What is express malice aforethought?

Answer 17

The direct intention to kill.

Question 18

What is implied malice aforethought?

Answer 18

The intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), which results in death.

Question 19

What is direct intent in murder?

Answer 19

When the defendant’s aim or purpose is to bring about the victim’s death.

Question 20

What is indirect (oblique) intent?

Answer 20

When the defendant foresees that death or serious harm is a virtually certain consequence of their actions, even if it was not their primary aim.

Question 21

What does R v Vickers establish about intent in murder?

Answer 21

An intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient for murder.

Question 22

Which case outlines the test for indirect or oblique intent?

Answer 22

R v Woollin.

Question 23

What is the significance of Matthews and Alleyne in indirect intent?

Answer 23

It reinforced that foresight of virtual certainty can be used as evidence of intent.

Question 24

What does the case of R v Mohan define about direct intent?

Answer 24

Direct intent is where death or serious injury is the defendant’s aim or purpose.

Question 25

What is transferred malice in murder?

Answer 25

When the defendant intends harm to one person but unintentionally causes harm to another.

Question 26

Explain the facts of R v White.

Answer 26

The defendant poisoned his mother, but she died of a heart attack before the poison took effect. He was not guilty of murder as the poison did not cause her death.

Question 27

How does R v Pagett illustrate factual causation?

Answer 27

The defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield, and she was shot by police. ‘But for’ his actions, she would not have died.

Question 28

What happened in R v Kimsey regarding causation?

Answer 28

The defendant was involved in a car chase that led to a fatal accident. Her actions were more than a minimal cause of the death.

Question 29

What did R v Smith clarify about causation in murder?

Answer 29

The initial wound inflicted by the defendant remained an operative and substantial cause of death, despite poor medical treatment.

Question 30

In R v Jordan, how did medical treatment break the chain of causation?

Answer 30

The victim was given incorrect medical treatment, which was deemed ‘palpably wrong’ and broke the chain of causation.

Question 31

How does R v Roberts demonstrate the victim’s own act breaking the chain of causation?

Answer 31

The victim jumped out of a moving car to escape sexual assault, and her actions were considered foreseeable.

Question 32

What is the significance of R v Williams in relation to the victim’s own actions?

Answer 32

The victim’s response was considered unreasonable, as he jumped from a car after an attempted robbery, breaking the chain of causation.

Question 33

What does R v Dear show about causation and the victim’s actions?

Answer 33

Even though the victim reopened his own wounds, the defendant’s initial act was still an operative cause of death.

Question 34

How does the thin skull rule apply in R v Blaue?

Answer 34

The defendant stabbed a Jehovah’s Witness who refused a life-saving blood transfusion. The defendant was still liable for her death.

Question 35

What principle does the thin skull rule reinforce?

Answer 35

The defendant must take the victim as they find them, including all vulnerabilities.

Question 36

What is the primary distinction between direct and indirect intent?

Answer 36

Direct intent is when the outcome is the defendant’s aim, whereas indirect intent involves a consequence that is virtually certain.

Question 37

What test did R v Woollin establish for indirect intent?

Answer 37

The virtual certainty test – if death or serious harm was virtually certain and the defendant appreciated that, intent can be inferred.

Question 38

How did Matthews and Alleyne interpret the Woollin test?

Answer 38

It held that foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of intent but does not automatically equate to intent.

Question 39

Why is R v Mohan significant in understanding direct intent?

Answer 39

It clarifies that direct intent is when the defendant’s purpose or aim is to cause the prohibited consequence.

Question 40

In what case was transferred malice applied?

Answer 40

R v Latimer, where the defendant intended to harm one person but accidentally injured another.

Question 41

What is the principle of transferred malice?

Answer 41

Intent can transfer if the defendant aims to harm one person but accidentally harms another.

Question 42

Can transferred malice apply if the intended harm is different from the actual harm?

Answer 42

No, the harm must be of the same type.

Question 43

Explain the facts of R v Latimer.

Answer 43

The defendant swung a belt at someone but accidentally hit another person. The intent transferred to the unintended victim.

Question 44

Why did R v Pembliton not qualify for transferred malice?

Answer 44

The defendant intended to hit a person but broke a window instead; the harm was not the same type.

Question 45

How is transferred malice used to establish mens rea in murder cases?

Answer 45

If intent to harm one person is established, it can transfer to the actual victim if they are harmed instead.

Question 46

What does novus actus interveniens mean?

Answer 46

It refers to a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.

Question 47

How can third-party actions affect causation in murder?

Answer 47

Third-party actions, like grossly negligent medical treatment, can break the chain if they are ‘palpably wrong.’

Question 48

What would make medical treatment not break the chain of causation?

Answer 48

If it is not ‘palpably wrong’ and the initial injury remains a substantial cause of death.

Question 49

What impact does the victim’s refusal of medical treatment have on causation?

Answer 49

It does not break the chain, as seen in R v Blaue under the thin skull rule.

Question 50

Can the victim’s own recklessness break the chain of causation?

Answer 50

It can, but only if the actions are deemed unreasonable.

Question 51

What did R v Dear suggest about causation and self-inflicted harm?

Answer 51

The defendant remained liable even though the victim reopened their own wounds.

Question 52

What concept did R v Smith clarify about causation?

Answer 52

The defendant’s actions must remain a significant and operative cause of death.

Question 53

What does R v Cheshire illustrate about causation in medical intervention?

Answer 53

Medical treatment generally does not break the chain of causation unless it is highly negligent.

Question 54

What are the implications of R v Jordan for causation in murder cases?

Answer 54

Medical treatment can break the chain if it is exceptionally poor and not connected to the original injury.

Question 55

In R v Roberts, how did the court rule on foreseeability and causation?

Answer 55

The victim’s actions were deemed foreseeable given the threat, maintaining the chain of causation.

Question 56

If a defendant shoots at a group intending to kill one person but kills another, is this murder?

Answer 56

Yes, under transferred malice, the intent transfers to the actual victim.

Question 57

What if the defendant intended serious harm but caused death instead?

Answer 57

This is murder, as intention to cause grievous bodily harm suffices for murder.

Question 58

If a victim dies due to their own refusal of medical treatment after an assault, is the defendant liable?

Answer 58

Yes, under the thin skull rule, the refusal does not break the chain of causation.

Question 59

How would an intervening act like severe medical negligence affect a murder charge?

Answer 59

It could potentially break the chain of causation if the negligence is extreme.

Question 60

What if a victim’s own reckless actions result in their death after an assault?

Answer 60

The chain of causation could be broken if the victim’s actions are deemed unforeseeable and unreasonable.

Question 61

If a victim is seriously injured by the defendant but dies due to inadequate medical care, is the defendant still liable for murder?

Answer 61

Generally, yes, unless the medical care was so grossly negligent that it broke the chain of causation (R v Cheshire).

Question 62

What happens if the defendant intends to frighten the victim, but the victim dies as a result of their reaction?

Answer 62

The defendant may still be liable if the reaction was foreseeable, as in R v Roberts.

Question 63

Can transferred malice apply if the intended and actual harm are different types?

Answer 63

No, transferred malice only applies if the harm is of the same type, as illustrated in R v Pembliton.

Question 64

If a defendant intends to harm someone but misses and accidentally kills a bystander, is this murder?

Answer 64

Yes, under transferred malice, the intent transfers to the unintended victim.

Question 65

In a case where a defendant’s action causes fear that leads to the victim’s accidental death, how is liability determined?

Answer 65

Liability depends on whether the victim’s reaction was foreseeable; if so, the defendant may still be liable.

Question 66

How does R v Pagett illustrate the role of third-party actions in causation?

Answer 66

The defendant used his girlfriend as a shield, and she was shot by police; he was liable as her death was a foreseeable result of his actions.

Question 67

Can a defendant argue that an unforeseen heart attack was the cause of death and not their assault?

Answer 67

Only if the heart attack was entirely unrelated and unforeseeable; otherwise, the initial assault remains the cause.

Question 68

If a victim dies from an infection caused by the defendant’s actions, is the defendant liable?

Answer 68

Yes, if the initial injury remains the substantial cause of death and the infection is a direct result of it.

Question 69

In what circumstances might an injury not lead to a murder charge if the victim dies later?

Answer 69

If there is a significant intervening act, like grossly negligent medical care, that breaks the chain of causation.

Question 70

If the victim’s refusal of treatment leads to death, is the defendant still liable?

Answer 70

Yes, under the thin skull rule, the defendant takes the victim as they find them (R v Blaue).

Question 71

How does R v Woollin help define indirect intent?

Answer 71

It established that if death or serious harm was a virtual certainty and the defendant foresaw it, intent can be inferred.

Question 72

If the defendant intends to seriously harm but not kill the victim, and the victim dies, what is this classified as?

Answer 72

This is murder, as intent to cause grievous bodily harm suffices for murder.

Question 73

In R v Matthews and Alleyne, how was indirect intent further clarified?

Answer 73

The court ruled that foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of intent, but not the same as direct intent.

Question 74

What is the significance of foreseeability in indirect intent?

Answer 74

Foreseeability of a virtually certain outcome can be used to establish intent even if it wasn’t the defendant’s aim.

Question 75

If a defendant claims they “only meant to scare” the victim but the victim dies, how might the court interpret this?

Answer 75

The court may examine whether the defendant foresaw serious harm or death as virtually certain, potentially inferring intent.

Question 76

What does R v Jordan tell us about medical intervention in causation?

Answer 76

It shows that “palpably wrong” medical treatment can break the chain of causation.

Question 77

How does R v Cheshire differ from R v Jordan in terms of causation?

Answer 77

In R v Cheshire, medical treatment did not break the chain as the initial injury was still a substantial cause of death.

Question 78

When does medical treatment break the chain of causation?

Answer 78

When the treatment is so poor that it becomes the primary cause of death, rather than the original injury.

Question 79

What must the prosecution prove regarding medical intervention and causation?

Answer 79

That the defendant’s actions were still a substantial cause of death despite medical treatment.

Question 80

If a victim dies after a botched surgery for injuries caused by the defendant, is the defendant still liable?

Answer 80

Generally, yes, unless the surgery was grossly negligent to the point it became the primary cause of death.

Question 81

What is the thin skull rule?

Answer 81

The defendant must take the victim as they find them, including any vulnerabilities or pre-existing conditions (R v Blaue).

Question 82

How did R v Blaue apply the thin skull rule?

Answer 82

The defendant was liable for the victim’s death after she refused a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs.

Question 83

If a victim has a health condition that makes injuries worse, is the defendant still liable for murder?

Answer 83

Yes, under the thin skull rule, the defendant is responsible for all consequences of their actions.

Question 84

Can the thin skull rule apply to psychological vulnerabilities?

Answer 84

Yes, if the defendant’s actions lead to a fatal response due to the victim’s psychological condition.

Question 85

What does the thin skull rule ensure in terms of liability?

Answer 85

That the defendant cannot escape liability due to the victim’s unique characteristics or vulnerabilities.

Question 86

What is “malice aforethought” in murder?

Answer 86

It refers to the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 87

Does “malice aforethought” require actual malice or hatred?

Answer 87

No, it simply means an intent to kill or seriously harm, regardless of feelings toward the victim.

Question 88

What distinguishes express from implied malice?

Answer 88

• Express Malice: Direct intent to kill. The defendant’s primary aim or purpose is to cause the death of the victim.
• Implied Malice: Intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) rather than to kill, but the actions result in the victim’s death. This intent to cause serious injury is enough for a murder charge if death occurs.

Question 89

What is the difference between express and implied malice aforethought?

Answer 89

Express malice aforethought is the direct intent to kill, while implied malice aforethought is the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which results in death.

Question 90

Does implied malice aforethought suffice for a murder charge?

Answer 90

Yes, intent to cause serious harm (grievous bodily harm) that results in death is enough for a murder conviction.

Question 91

In R v Vickers, how was implied malice established?

Answer 91

The defendant intended to cause serious harm, which led to the victim’s death, establishing implied malice.

Question 92

What does R v Cunningham clarify about malice?

Answer 92

It clarifies that malice in murder can include recklessness as to causing grievous bodily harm if the defendant foresees serious harm as a likely outcome.

Question 93

Does the mens rea of murder require premeditation?

Answer 93

No, intent can be formed immediately before the act; premeditation is not required.

Question 94

If a defendant accidentally kills someone during an argument but intended to cause harm, is this murder?

Answer 94

Yes, if the defendant intended to cause serious harm (implied malice), it can still constitute murder.

Question 95

Can ‘reckless indifference’ lead to a murder charge?

Answer 95

Only if the recklessness amounts to foresight of serious harm or death; otherwise, it may lead to a lesser charge like manslaughter.

Question 96

If a defendant claims they ‘didn’t mean to kill’ but foresaw death as a virtual certainty, what might this imply?

Answer 96

This could imply indirect intent, as foresight of virtual certainty can be used to infer intent (Woollin test).

Question 97

Can a defendant be charged with murder if they intended only to injure but used lethal force?

Answer 97

Yes, if the injury inflicted was severe enough to indicate an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 98

What happens if a defendant accidentally kills while attempting to commit another crime?

Answer 98

If the crime involved intent to cause harm, transferred malice might apply, resulting in a murder charge.

Question 99

Is a murder charge possible if the defendant claims they ‘lost control’ during the act?

Answer 99

Yes, loss of control does not negate intent but might be considered as a partial defense, reducing murder to manslaughter.

Question 100

What are the key components the prosecution must prove in a murder case?

Answer 100

The prosecution must prove the actus reus (unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace) and mens rea (malice aforethought, either express or implied).