Murder Flashcards
Murder is…
Murder is a common law offence. It’s an indictable offence, therefore only triable by the jury in the Crown Court and carries a mandatory life sentence.
Murder requires both actus reus and mens rea.
Actus reus
‘Unlawful killing of a human being’
4 components: unlawful killing, causing (causation), death, reasonable creature in being
Unlawful killing
The defendant’s act or omission must unlawfully kill the victim
There are a few exceptions if the killing is legally justified e.g., doctors turning off life support (as victim would already be brain dead), killing in an act of war
Causing (causation)
Usual rules of causation apply
Factual
- ‘But for’ test – but for the defendant’s act, the death would not have occurred
- Murder is a result crime, meaning that the defendant must be the factual cause of death/actus reus is established by the result or consequence (the act must directly link to the outcome)
Legal
- De minimus principle – ‘more than a slight or trifling link’ between conduct and consequence
- The defendant’s act or omission must be an operative and substantial cause of the consequence (with no intervening acts to break the chain of events) but it need not be the sole or main cause of death
- It must have ‘more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to the death’ (Lord Woolf)
Death
This is a medical test and not a legal one. It currently means ‘brain stem death’
Reasonable creature in being
Means a human being – the test is ‘when’ is a human being, not ‘what’ is a human being
Foetus – when is a human being capable of existence independent of the mother? This means born alive and breathing through its own lungs
Brain dead – since doctors have confirmed that death takes place when brain stem death occurs, if a doctor switches off life support it will not be murder as the victim is already braindead from the defendant’s acts or omissions
Illness or disability, no matter how extreme, does not prevent a person from being a human being – euthanasia is still murder
Mens rea
‘Malice aforethought expressed or implied’ - defendant must have intention to kill (express) or have intention to cause serious harm (implied)
‘Malice aforethought’ – meaning ‘intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm’
Murder is a specific intent crime, meaning that the defendant must have had intention - recklessness is not sufficient
This can be:
- Direct intent to kill/cause serious harm
-Oblique intent to kill/cause serious harm
Direct intent
Test for direct intention: where the defendant’s main aim or purpose was to being about the prohibited consequence
Oblique intent
Test for oblique intention: where it is not the defendant’s main aim or purpose to bring about the prohibited result, but he foresees that the result is virtually certain to occur because of his actions
Prima facie case of murder
Latin expression - ‘at first sight’
Sufficient, initial evidence presented by the prosecution showing that the defendant was at the crime scene and had motive – constitutes a prima facie case of guilt
Defences to murder
Voluntary manslaughter - LoC, diminished responsibly
Novus actus interveniens
Automatism
Intoxication
R v Clegg
Unlawful killing
D’s lack of ‘wicked or evil’ motive did not preclude his actions from being unlawful
R v Malcherek and Steel
Death, Unlawful killing
Confirms the ‘brain stem’ as the current medical test for death
R v Inglis
Death, Reasonable creature in being
‘A disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person’
A-G Ref No.3 of 1994
Reasonable creature in being
‘Murder or manslaughter can be committed where… the child is subsequently born alive enjoys an existence independent of the mother, therefore dies’
Dance v Mid-Downes Health Authority
Reasonable creature in being
A fetus is a human being where it is capable of living and breathing through its own lungs without any connection to its mother
R v Vickers
Mens rea
Lord Goddard CJ: ‘’malice aforethought’ has always been defined in English law as either an express intention to kill… or implied where, by a voluntary act, the accused intended to cause GBH to the V, and the V dies as the result’
DPP v Smith
Mens rea - Lord Mustill
‘Grevious means no more and no less than really serious’
R v Saunders
Mens rea - intent to cause serious harm
The word ‘serious’ could be safely omitted
R v Janjua and Choudhury
Mens rea - intent to cause serious harm
The word ‘serious’ could be safely omitted
Murder definition
Defined by 17th century judge Lord Coke as the ‘unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace, with malice aforethought expressed or implied’
Murder plan
Issue - Murder is …
Law - defined by 17th century judge Lord Coke
Actus reus:
- Define
- 4 components:
- Unlawful killing - R v Clegg
- Causation
- Death - R v Malcherek and Steel
- Reasonable creature in being - A-G Ref No.3 of 1994, R v Inglis, Dance v Mid-Downes Health Authority
- Apply all
Causation (under AR) - Lord Woolf in R v HM Coroner for Inner London ex parte Douglas-Williams
- Factual: But for test - R v Pagett
- Legal: De minimus principle - Lord Woolf - R v Kimsey
Apply + cases for causation …..
Mens rea:
- Define - Lord Mustill
- Apply
- Cases - Lord Goddard CJ in R v Vickers, R v Woollin
- Direct intent and apply - R v Janjua and Choudhury
- Oblique intent and apply - DPP v Smith, R v Saunders
Prima facie case of murder
Defences:
- Voluntary manslaughter (LoC or DR)
- Novus actus interveniens (under causation)
- Automatism
- Intoxication
Conclusion - If D satisfies all elements of the actus reus and mens rea, with no interveing acts and is the sole cause of the consequence, then D is liable of murder
R v Woollin
The intention for murder requires foresight of virtual certainty, not merely substantial risk of death or serious harm
