Murder Flashcards
Murder
‘The unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought’.
Actus reus
- unlawful
- killing
- of a human being
- in a time of peace
- resulting in death
Mens Rea
Malice aforethought
Omission
Normally, an omission will be enough to satisfy the actus reus.
Omission cases
Stone and Dobinson - a duty taken voluntarily
Pittwood - a contractual duty
Miller - d set in motion a chain of events
Gibbins and Proctor - a duty because of a relationship
Actus reus - unlawful
Self defence makes a killing lawful. Killing in wartime will be lawful.
Actus reus - human being
A foetus is not a human being, however, if the foetus is hurt, then born, then dies, then it will be considered a human being. If someone is in a coma and brain dead, they are not a human being.
Human being - cases
A.G’s Reference (number 3 of 1994) - a foetus is not a human being
Malcherek - someone in a coma and brain dead is not a human being
Factual causation
‘But for’ test.
Factual causation - cases
- Pagett: caused her death
- White: didn’t cause death, v would’ve died anyway
Legal causation
‘De minimus’ rule.
Legal causation - cases
Kimsey - d’s act must be more than a slight or trifling link
Cheshire - d’s act must make a significant contribution
Roberts - the chain of causation will not be broken if v’s act was foreseeable
Williams - chain of causation may be broken if v’s act was daft
Blau - the thin skull rule may apply
Medical treatment
Hospital treatment will only break the chain if it’s so ‘potent, that the jury will regard the contribution made by d as insignificant’.
Medical treatment - case
Cheshire
Mens Rea - malice aforethought
This can be either:
- expressed malice aforethought (intention to kill)
Or
- implied malice aforethought (intention to cause GBH)
Intention
Direct intent or oblique intent are the main mens rea elements of murder.
Direct intent - case
Vickers - intention to cause GBH is enough for murder
Mohan - intention to kill
Oblique intent
Found in s.8 of the criminal justice act (1967).
For murder, we can put the case of Smith and s.8 together and see there must be evidence that d intended or foresaw that death or GBH would result.
The Nedrick test
This applies whenever a form of indirect intention is apparent and the charge is one of murder. Unless d’s actions are so dangers that death or serious injury is a virtual certainty (and d is aware of this), intention to offend cannot be inferred by the jury.
The Nedrick test - case
Woolin - the House of Lords confirmed the Nedrick direction that the jury took
