Murder

Question 1

Actus reus

Answer 1

unlawfully causing the death of another person

Question 2

Mens rea

Answer 2

‘Malice aforethought’

which is an ‘intention to kill or cause GBH’ to the victim - Cunningham [1982]

Question 3

Intention in murder

Answer 3

addressed in Woolin

There must be virtual certainty that D’s acts would have caused GBH or death

Jury do not have to find intent but they can if sufficed

Question 4

• Cunningham [1982] AC 566

Answer 4

D struck another man with several blows to the head by a heavy chair - unprovoked - motivated by sexual jealousy - V dies - D denies intent to kill - but there is evidence of intent to cause GBH - convicted of murder-
appeal rejected by H o L

the mens rea of murder, ‘malice aforethought’, can be applied where one has the intent to inflict GBH

Lord Hailsham held that the law on this had been set in Hyam vs DPP and there was no valid reason to change or overrule the law

Question 5

• Moloney [1985] AC 905

Answer 5

Son accidentally shoots father late one evening whilst they were drinking- father claimed he could ‘outdraw and outshoot’ son- Manslaughter conviction

Foresight is not equivalent and does not necessarily amount to intention but it is evidence from which intent can be inferred

Also creation of Lord Bridge’s ‘golden rule’ - that for crimes of specific intent - intent to be given normal meaning - no direction from judges unless the facts of case are so obscure direction is deemed required

Question 6

• A-G’s Ref (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936,

Answer 6

D stabbed a young woman who was to his knowledge pregnant with his child- no injury to foetus detected – few weeks after stabbing -woman goes into labour and gave birth to a grossly premature child – considered to only have 50% chance of survival – at time of birth it was clear knife had in fact penetrated the foetus. Child dies 121 days later from lung condition- related to premature birth but unrelated to knife wound

–H o L rule that the D could be charged with unlawful manslaughter as he has the necessary mens rea – tyring to GBH the mother , the actus reus, and stabbing the mother and the baby suffering as a result is a foreseeable consequence

Held that:
1) sufficient for the mens rea for manslaughter that D intended to commit unlawful act which all sober and reasonable people would have recognised as creating a risk of harm to some other person;

2) that it was unnecessary to show that the person who died as a result of the act was the intended victim or could have been envisaged as being within the area of potential risk

D could not be guilty of murder - but is of unlawful act manslaughter

Question 7

• Woollin [1999] AC 92

Answer 7

Father loses temper - throws his 3yr old son on the floor - baby smashes his skull and dies- convicted of manslaughter

For murder cases the intent needed is that of foresight of virtually certainty of death or substantial harm (GBH)- NOT merely substantial risk of death or harm

Changing of wording from ‘infer’ to ‘find’ + negative judicial statements (“you cannot find x guilty unless…….) - allows for more flexible interpretation of law and jury have choice not to find intent if appropriate - eg doctor helping patient die - should we really criminalise this ?