Murder

Question 1

Coke’s definition of murder

Answer 1

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace - 17th C

Question 2

R v White

Answer 2

As homicide is a result crime, it is necessary to establish both factual and legal chain of causation. Factual causation is determined through the ‘But For’ test derived from (CASE).

Question 3

R v Wallace

Answer 3

The legal causation is determined by actions of the defendant which are a ‘significant and operative’ cause of the death as per (CASE).

Question 4

For legal causation to be established, the actions of the defendant must be…

Answer 4

Significant and operative

Question 5

Omissions

Answer 5

(PRINCIPLE), a failure to act, do not lead to criminal liability unless there is a breach of duty to act.

Question 6

R v Cheshire

Answer 6

Intervening acts may break the chain of causation if they are an overwhelming cause of death as per (CASE)

Question 7

R v Blaue

Answer 7

The thin-skull rule from (CASE) holds the defendant liable even if the victim suffers an unexpected level of harm.

Question 8

Thin-Skull

Answer 8

The (CONCEPT) holds the defendant liable even if the victim suffers an unexpected level of harm.

Question 9

Intervening acts

Answer 9

(PRINCIPLE) may break the chain of causation if they are an overwhelming cause of death

Question 10

R v Moloney

Answer 10

For there to be a mens rea of murder, an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) must be present as per (CASE).

Question 11

Mens Rea for Murder

Answer 11

an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)

Question 12

s.1 of the Homicide Act 1957

Answer 12

(ACT) states that ‘killing shall not amount to murder unless done with… malice aforethought.’

Question 13

R v Cunningham

Answer 13

(CASE) defined ‘malice aforethought’ as an intention to kill or an intention to cause GBH. This is satisfied through either direct intent or oblique intent.

Question 14

R v Duff

Answer 14

(CASE) claims that direct intent is satisfied if the defendant had a clear purpose to kill or cause GBH

Question 15

Direct intent

Answer 15

R v Duff claims that (PRINCIPLE) is satisfied if the defendant had a clear purpose to kill or cause GBH

Question 16

R v Woollin

Answer 16

(CASE) also held that where death is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions, the mens rea is present through oblique intent.

Question 17

Oblique intent

Answer 17

R v Woollin also held that where death is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions, the mens rea is present through (CONCEPT).

Question 18

Latimer v Pembliton

Answer 18

(CASE) held that transferred malice, where the defendant’s intent to harm one person was transferred to the actual victim, is still satisfactory to establish mens rea.

Question 19

Diminished Responsibility

Answer 19

s.2 Homicide Act 1957

Question 20

Loss of Control

Answer 20

s.54 and s.55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 22

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace - 17th C

Answer 22

Coke’s definition of murder

Question 23

As homicide is a result crime, it is necessary to establish both factual and legal chain of causation. Factual causation is determined through the ‘But For’ test derived from (CASE).

Answer 23

R v White

Question 24

The legal causation is determined by actions of the defendant which are a ‘significant and operative’ cause of the death as per (CASE).

Answer 24

R v Wallace

Question 25

Significant and operative

Answer 25

For legal causation to be established, the actions of the defendant must be…

Question 26

(PRINCIPLE) do not lead to criminal liability unless there is a breach of duty to act.

Answer 26

Omissions

Question 27

Intervening acts may break the chain of causation if they are an overwhelming cause of death as per (CASE)

Answer 27

R v Cheshire

Question 28

The thin-skull rule from (CASE) holds the defendant liable even if the victim suffers an unexpected level of harm.

Answer 28

R v Blaue

Question 29

The (CONCEPT) holds the defendant liable even if the victim suffers an unexpected level of harm.

Answer 29

Thin-Skull

Question 30

(PRINCIPLE) may break the chain of causation if they are an overwhelming cause of death

Answer 30

Intervening acts

Question 31

For there to be a mens rea of murder, an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) must be present as per (CASE).

Answer 31

R v Moloney

Question 32

an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)

Answer 32

Mens Rea for Murder

Question 33

(ACT) states that ‘killing shall not amount to murder unless done with… malice aforethought.’

Answer 33

s.1 of the Homicide Act 1957

Question 34

(CASE) defined ‘malice aforethought’ as an intention to kill or an intention to cause GBH, which can be satisfied through either direct intent (express malice) or oblique intent (implied malice)

Answer 34

R v Cunningham

Question 35

(CASE) claims that direct intent is satisfied if the defendant had a clear purpose to kill or cause GBH

Answer 35

R v Duff

Question 36

R v Duff claims that (PRINCIPLE) is satisfied if the defendant had a clear purpose to kill or cause GBH

Answer 36

Direct intent

Question 37

(CASE) also held that where death is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions, the mens rea is present through oblique intent.

Answer 37

R v Woollin

Question 38

R v Woollin also held that where death is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions, the mens rea is present through (CONCEPT).

Answer 38

Oblique intent

Question 39

(CASE) held that transferred malice, where the defendant’s intent to harm one person was transferred to the actual victim, is still satisfactory to establish mens rea.

Answer 39

Latimer v Pembliton

Question 40

s.2 Homicide Act 1957

Answer 40

Diminished Responsibility

Question 41

s.54 and s.55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Answer 41

Loss of Control