Murder Flashcards
murder
What is the definition of murder as by Edward Coke?
The unlawful killing of a reasonable person [human being] in being under the kings peace with malice aforethought express or implied [intention to kill of cause GBH]
What is needed for murder in exam?
Actus rea of murder + relevant case law
Causation -both factual and legal + relevant case law
Mens rea of murder - difference between direct and indirect and meaning of oblique intention + relevant case law
Actus reus of murder?
- The defendant killed
- The killing was unlawful -no defence
- The killing was of a human being
- The killing took place under the kings peace
The defendant killed definition
The killing must be a voluntary positive act or an omission
The killing was unlawful killing definition
Unlikely there is no defence as there is no reason for the killing
The killing is of a human being definition
The killing is of an ‘existance independent of the mother’
Authority comes from A-G red No3 1994
Killing was under the kings peace definition
The killing is not murder is took place during the setting of war
R v Blackman
What are the 2 kinds of causation?
Factual causation
Legal causations
Factual causation
‘But for’ test - only guilty if the consequence would not have happened but for the defendants actions
Rv white
Rv Pagett
R v white case facts
Had poisoned milk every night
But for his actions would his mother have died? Yes as heart attack
Was convicted of attempted murder
R v Pagett
But for him using his pregnant girlfriend as a shield would she have died? No
So guilty of murder
Legal causation
First 2 issues to address
‘de minimus rule’ - R v Kimsey
The actions were substantial enough to have had the main cause of death
R v smith case facts
The stab would was the operating (main) cause of death so the conviction of murder was upheld
Novus Actus Interveniens (a new operating cause)
If there is a completely new cause of death then the liability may be waived
2 issues considered as intervening acts
Medical treatment
Victims own actions
Medical treatment/intervention
A medical treatment is most unlikely to break the chain of causation
It would have to be overwhelmingly palpably wrong
R v Jordan case facts
D stabbed v
Negligible medical work
Stab wound was healing at time of death
D not liable
R v Cheshire case details
D shot v
Negligible medical work
Was still a cause of death
D liable
Victims own actions as a novus Actus Interveniens
May break the chain of caution is so much unforeseen in a sense the victim was seen as ‘daft’ to do such action
R v Roberts case facts
D had made threats to rape and kill
V jumped out of car and died
Was foreseeable so D liable
R v Williams and Davis case facts
Made threats to steal
V jumped out of car
Not foreseeable action
D not liable for murder
What if victim fails to seek medical attention?
R v Deer
The wound is still the operating cause of death so D liable
What if life support is switched of is that an intervention
R v Malcherek
Not a NAI as the stab was the main cause of death
Thin skull rule
R v blaue
The defendant must take his victim as he finds them
