Murder Flashcards
Actus Reus of Murder 1797
- Unlawfully
- Killeth within any country of the real
- Reasonable creature in rerum natura
- Under the kings peace
- So as the wounded party, or hurt ect die or the wound or hurt ect within a year and a day of the same
Unlawfully
The defendant must be someoone to whom criminal liability may attatch, this would exclude those under ten and those legally insane
Killeth
- The defendant must have killed the victim
- Causation must be proved, the defendant must be shown to have caused the death of the victim
Conduct Crimes
Punish the actual conduct of the defendant, eg. Perjury
Result crimes
Punish the result of the defendant’s actions, eg. Murder, causation needs to be proved
What are the two tests for causation
- Cause in fact
- Cause in law
Cause in Fact
- The ‘but for’ test: would the death have occurred but for the acts of the defendant
- If death would have occurred, then no factual causation
R v Wite [1910] 2 KB 124
Defendant put cyanide in mother’s drink, intending to kill her but she actuall dies of heart failure, not poisoning
- No legal causation
R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741
- The defendant had shoved a man who fell onto a woman who had a hip problem, the woman went to hospital, when they set her hip, the blood clot killed her
- It was held that Mitchell had caused the death, the woman woudl not have needed hospital care but for the actions of the accused
Cause in law
- Must be a substantial cause
- No break in the chain of causation
R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110
- Must be a contributory factor it need not be the sole or overwhelming cause
Ways to break chain in causation
- By the Victim
- By third parties
- By natural events
R v Balue [1975] 3 All ER 446
The defendant must take the victim as he finds him
Thin skull rule
- Extends beyond pre-existing medical or psychiatric conditions to include non-physical conditions such as religious beliefs
R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95
- The ‘escape cases’: As long as the acts of the victim are reasonably foreseeable, the chain of causation will not be brokem - jumping from a moving car to avoid an assault
R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38
- The legal cain of causation is only broken where the victim is an informed adult of sound mind and their actions are free, deliberate and informed
R v Field [2021] EWCA Crim 380
Applying Kennedy
- Where V is being deliberately led into a dangerous situation by someone who pretends to be concerned about his safety, then that is not a free, voluntary and informed decision, and so D is liable for murder
R v Rebelo [2021] EWCA Crim 306
Applying Kennedy
- Where V purchased ‘food supplements’ advertised as such online but which were actually dangerous chemicals then she ‘did not make a fully free, voluntary and informed decision to risk death’
- D’s conviction upheld
R v Wallave [2018] EWCA Crim 690
- D attacked V, V survived but moved to Belgium where he decided to end his life in a euthanasia clinic
- Crown Court held that causation could not be found on these facts
- Court of Appeal held that causation was possible, focuseed on foreseeability and voluntariness
By third parties
Foreseeable acts by third parties will not break chain of causation
R v Paggett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
D used girlfriend as ‘human shield’ to stop police from shooting him. Police shot and killed his girlfriend, D held liable - police fire has not broken the chain of causation because D had caused the police to fire (in self-defence), Foreseeable
R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 250
D stabbed V but medics treating V injected V with same erroneous drug twice, held that this broke chain of causation
R v Smith (1959) 2 QB 35
Stabbed V in barrack room brawl, V dropped twice by another soldier taking him from room, V also suffered medical negligence, held that this did NOT break chain of causation
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844
D shot V, V taken to hospital and developed respiration problems given a tracheotomy tube, two months later, died due to obstruction of the wind pipe due to tube
- Surgeon noted that D wounds were no longer life threatening
- Held that this did not break the chain of causation since medical complication still a direct consequence of D’s act
By natural events
- Unpredictable natural events will break chain of causation
- Foreseeable natural events will not break chain of causation
Reasonable Creature
- The victim must have still been alive at the time of the alleged act and accompanying mens rea
- A foetus in womb is not a ‘life in being’
Under the King’s peace
- This excludes alien enemied in time of war
- An enemy alien is under the King’s Peace if they are prisoners of war
The year and a day rule
- Abolished as a reult of the Law Reform Act 1996
- The rationale behind the change was advances in medical technology that meant that victims could be kept alive via life support
Mens Rea of Murder 1797
With malice fore-thought either expressed by the party, or implied by law
Malice Aforethought
- Intention to kill
- Intention to cause grievous bodily harm
Oblique intention
- Do you have the ability to foresee the side effect?
- If yes, how clearly do you need to see that side effect? Does it need to have been certain to occur? Does it have to be virtually certain to occur? Or does it have to be merely probably?
Oblique intention - current law
- Have to be able to foresee the side effect
- The side effect needs to be foreseen as being virtually certain
R v Matthews [2003] EWCA Crim 192
Oblique intention not a rule of substantive law - foresight of virtually certain consequences is a matter of evidence for the jurt to decide
