Murder Flashcards
What is the correct definition of murder under English law?
A. The intentional killing of another human being with malice
B. The killing of any person, lawful or unlawful, within the jurisdiction
C. The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought
D. The premeditated killing of another by any means
C. The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought
Explanation: This is the standard common law definition of murder.
Which of the following is sufficient mens rea for murder?
A. Recklessness as to death
B. Intention to cause grievous bodily harm
C. Motive to cause financial harm
D. Negligence causing death
B. Intention to cause grievous bodily harm
Explanation: Intent to cause GBH (serious harm) is enough for the mens rea of murder (R v Vickers).
Which of the following is NOT part of the actus reus of murder?
A. Unlawful killing
B. Of a reasonable person in being
C. Under the King’s peace
D. While under provocation
D. While under provocation
Explanation: Provocation may reduce liability, but it is not part of the actus reus of murder.
D stabs V in a pub. V is rushed to hospital but dies of an allergic reaction to anaesthetic. Is D liable for murder?
A. Yes, D caused V’s death in law and fact
B. No, D acted in self-defence
C. No, the allergic reaction broke the chain of causation
D. No, D did not intend to kill
A. Yes, D caused V’s death in law and fact
Explanation: The stabbing was a substantial cause, and the chain of causation was not broken.
D punches V once, intending to hurt but not kill. V hits their head on the curb and dies. What is the likely outcome?
A. D has committed manslaughter due to lack of intent
B. D is not liable because death was unforeseeable
C. D is guilty of murder due to oblique intent
D. D is guilty of murder if intent to cause GBH is found
A. D has committed manslaughter due to lack of intent
Explanation: If there was no intent to kill or cause GBH, then murder is not made out. This would be unlawful act manslaughter.
Which of the following correctly applies the test for oblique intent from R v Woollin?
A. D must have foreseen a possibility of death
B. D must desire the outcome of death
C. Death must have been a virtual certainty, and D appreciated this
D. D must plan the death in advance
C. Death must have been a virtual certainty, and D appreciated this
Explanation: This is the two-part Woollin test: (1) virtual certainty and (2) defendant’s awareness.
A pregnant woman is stabbed. The baby is born prematurely but later dies from the injury. Can this be murder?
A. Yes, the foetus was injured
B. No, the woman was not killed
C. Yes, the child died as a result
D. No, the child was not a legal person when stabbed
D. No, the child was not a legal person when stabbed
Explanation: A foetus is not a “person in being”, so the act cannot be murder (AG Ref (No 3 of 1994)).
Which of the following situations would constitute a lawful killing under English law?
A. Killing a fleeing thief
B. Killing in battle during war
C. Killing out of revenge
D. Killing someone who insults you
B. Killing in battle during war
Explanation: Killing during armed conflict is not unlawful and not murder under English law.
Which case confirmed that intention to cause GBH satisfies the mens rea for murder?
A. R v Moloney
B. R v Vickers
C. R v White
D. R v Adebolajo
B. R v Vickers
Explanation: In Vickers, the court confirmed that intention to cause GBH is enough for murder.
D kills a loved one to end their suffering from a terminal illness. What is the legal position?
A. It is not murder due to lack of malice
B. It is manslaughter due to diminished responsibility
C. It is not a crime if done out of compassion
D. It is murder – motive is irrelevant
D. It is murder – motive is irrelevant
Explanation: Mercy killing is still murder under English law. Intention matters, not motive (R v Inglis).
Which of the following statements about intention is correct?
A. Direct intent requires a motive
B. Oblique intent always equals direct intent
C. Oblique intent is evidence from which intention may be inferred
D. Intention must be proved only for manslaughter
C. Oblique intent is evidence from which intention may be inferred
Explanation: Matthews & Alleyne – oblique intent is not the same as direct intent but can be used to prove it.
D fires into a crowd to scare people. One person dies. D did not aim to kill but saw serious injury was a near certainty. What result?
A. D is guilty of manslaughter only
B. D had direct intention
C. D had no liability if no intent to kill
D. D had oblique intent and can be guilty of murder
A. D is guilty of manslaughter only
Explanation: If the jury is not satisfied that D foresaw death or serious injury as virtually certain, murder will not be made out.
