Murder Flashcards
Actus Reus
- unlawful killing
- human being
- under the Kings peace
- within any country of the realm
Unlawful killing
There must be an unlawful killing
* D’s acts or omissions must cause V’s death in fact and law
* Key Cases: Pagett, Smith, Cheshire
Of a living human being
- V must have existence independent of the mother
o Key Case: A-G’s Ref (No.3 of 1994) - V must not be brain dead
o Key Case: Malcherek
within the King’s peace & any country of the realm
Not an enemy during war
* Key Case: Blackman
* Anywhere in the UK
Mens Rea
- with malice aforethought
malice aforethought
- With intent to kill a human being (express malice)
- Or intent to commit GBH (implied malice)
o Key Case: Vickers
Intent x 2 meanings
Direct intent is the defendant’s aim or purpose
o Key Case: Mohan
* Indirect (oblique) intent is where death/GBH is not the defendant’s purpose
but D foresees it as virtually certain
o Key Case: Woollin
Transferred Malice (if appliable)
Principle allowing the mens rea for an offence to be transferred from one victim to another – Latimer,
* If the defendant, with the mens rea of a specific crime causes the actus reus of another crime, the mens rea is generally not transferred –
Pembliton,
Coincidence of actus Reus and Mens rea (if applicable)
Principle that extends the rule that the actus reus and mens rea elements of a crime must occur at the same time
* One exception to the rule under ‘coincidence’ is the transaction theory where the actus reus is part of a larger sequence of events, where it may be sufficient that a defendant forms the mens rea at some point during the sequence – Thabo Meli
Definition of murder
Murder is defined in common law (Lord Coke) as the unlawful killing of a human being under the king’s peace with in any country of the realm
In order for X to be criminally liable for murder, both the Actus Reus and Mens Rea
must be present.
Causation in fact and law
Causation in fact - defendant, ‘but for their actions, V would have lived White, Pagett
• Causation in law - D is more than a minimal contribution to death of victim - Kimsey
• Defendant’s act must be the operative and substantial cause of harm - Smith, Cheshire.
• Chain may be broken, only by an intervening act (Novus Actus Interveniens).
