Murder

Question 1

What is the lord coke definition of murder

Answer 1

The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the queens peace with malice aforethought

Question 2

State the actus reus of this offence

Answer 2

The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being he queens peace

Question 3

State the mens rea of this offence

Answer 3

Malice aforethought

Question 4

What has malice aforethought been interpreted to mean?

Answer 4

Intention

Question 5

Is a foetus a human being in terms of law, and what is the authority for this?

Answer 5

No, AG’s reference Number 3 of 1994

Question 6

What is the general rule regarding omissions

Answer 6

No act = No actus reus

Question 7

What are the exceptions to the omission rule?Name the cases that highlight these principles

Answer 7

1. A Contractual duty ( Pittwood )
2. Duty due to a relationship ( Gibbons and Proctor )
3. A duty take voluntarily ( Stone and Dobinson)
4. A duty to minimise harm of your own creation ( Miller )

Question 8

When does life begin in terms of law

Answer 8

When a baby has an existence independent form its mother

Question 9

Is a brain dead person a reasonable creature in being

Answer 9

Malcherek states that if a person has no brain stem function then they are not considered a reasonable creature in being.

Question 10

Who and what action was the precedent set in Malcherek protecting?

Answer 10

The decision to switch off a life support machine by doctors.

Question 11

State the year and a day rule

Answer 11

Death must have occurred within a year and a day after the defendant act for them to be liable for murder.

Question 12

What did the law reform 1996 do to the year and a day rule and why

Answer 12

Medical knowledge has improved to the point where a patient can live for much longer than a year and day therefore outdating this rule. The law reform abolished this rule

Question 13

What are the three elements of causation?

Answer 13

1. Factual
2. Legal
3. No intervening act

Question 14

What is the test for factual causation?

Answer 14

The case of Pagett developed the but for test to establish factual causation.

Question 15

State what the But for test is

Answer 15

Would the criminal consequence for the victim would have happened but for the defendants conduct

Question 16

What is the general rule surrounding legal causation

Answer 16

The defendant actions need not be the sole cause but must be more than a minimal cause. This was established in the case of cato

Question 17

The case Kimsey clear up about the CA’s statement about legal causation?

Answer 17

Changed the meaning of di minimis to a more slight or stifling link

Question 18

What did the case of Blaue identify about causation?

Answer 18

you must take your victim as you find them, if any personal characteristics that makes the level of harm for the victim worse then it will not lessen the liability of D

Question 19

What are the three intervening acts that break the chain of causation

Answer 19

1. An act of s third party
2. The victims own act
3. A natural but unpredictable event

Question 20

When will medical treatment break the chain of causation?

Answer 20

When the treatment is so potent in causing death and independent of D’s own act that it renders it insignificant

Question 21

Why was the defendant held to be not guilty in Jordan but guilty in the cases of smith and Cheshire?

Answer 21

The second application of antibiotics were so independent of the now life threatening injuries inflicted my D that it made his involvement insignificant