Murder

Question 1

Lord Coke’s definihtion

Answer 1

“Unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied”

Question 2

Actus Reus

Answer 2

For the majority of murders, D will cause the consequence to V through an act. E.g. Kicking V to death.

In a small number of cases, however, it’ll be what V does not do which causes the V’s death, as in R v Gibbons and Proctor.

Question 3

Omission general rule

Answer 3

D will only be held criminally liable for V’s death if he/she had a duty to act and failed to do so. Except when there is a state of affairs case e.g. R v Larsonneur

Question 4

Duty to act situations

Answer 4

Contractual - R v Pittwood - Failed to close the gate

Relationship - R v Gibbons and Proctor - Failed to
provide basic human need

Voluntarily assuming responsibility - R v Stone and Dobinson - Failing to provide medical care

Public office - R v Dytham - Failed to keep the Queen’s peace

Creating a dangerous situation - R v Miller - Failed to extinguish a fire he started

Question 5

Causation

Answer 5

To prove that D’s act/ omission caused V’s death, the prosecution must show that D’s conduct was…

The Factual cause of V’s death
AND/ OR
The legal cause of V’s death

Question 6

Factual causation

Answer 6

D’s conduct was the factual cause of V’s death… using the ‘But for’ test.

R v Pagett - V would not have died ‘but for’ D using her as a human shield in a police shootout.

R v White - V would still have died ‘but for’ D poisoning her drink.

Question 7

Legal causation

Answer 7

D’s conduct was the legal cause of V’s death… using the ‘Operative and Substantial’ test to prove D’s actions where still a significant cause of V’s death.

R v Smith - D stabbing V in the lung was still an operative and substantial cause of his death, despite the fact he was dropped many times on the way to the hospital and the doctor gave him the wrong treatment.

Question 8

Intervening acts

Answer 8

This can prevent D’s conduct from being the ‘operative and substantial’ cause of V’s consequence by breaking the chain of causation, provided the intervening act is:

i) Sufficiently serious
ii) Sufficiently independent of D’s conduct

Question 9

Types of intervening acts - One

Answer 9

i) Actions of a third party - R v Jordan - In order to break the chain, the act of a doctor as a third party must be “palpably wrong”

The act needs to be unforeseeable and independent in order to break the chain. If there was a foreseeable intervening act, then the chain will not be broken.

Question 10

Types of intervening acts - Two

Answer 10

ii) Victim’s own actions - R v Roberts - V’s own actions were foreseeable and reasonable so they did not break the chain of causation.

R v Williams - V’s actions were unreasonable and unforeseeable so did break the chain of causation.

Question 11

Types of intervening acts - Three

Answer 11

iii) A natural and unpredictable event - Storm

Question 12

Thin skull rule

Answer 12

Any characteristic which makes V more vulnerable will not affect the chain of causation and D will still be criminally liable - R v Blaue - V was a Jehova’s witness who refused a blood transfusion after being stabbed by D. As a result, V died. D was still found guilty.

Question 13

Unlawful

Answer 13

R v Martin - Forced used was disproportionate to the threat, therefore, V’s killing was unlawful.

Self - defence would be a lawful killing.

Question 14

Under the Queen’s peace

Answer 14

DPP v Clegg - a country is not under the Queen’s peace if it has declared war.

Question 15

Reasonable creature in being - Start of life

Answer 15

Attorney General’s reference (3 of 1944) - For a foetus to be considered a reasonable creature in being, it must have an existence independent to that of the mother’s.

Transferred malice cannot apply here as the foetus is not considered a human being as it is not born.

Question 16

Reasonable creature in being - End of life

Answer 16

Malcharek - Life ends when a person has no brain activity.

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland - Life sustaining treatment can be withdraw from a PVS state as long as the court has given permission and it is in the patient’s best interest to do so.

Question 17

Mens rea

Answer 17

Malice aforethought.

There are two ways one can prove D’s MR.

Express or implied malice.

Question 18

Express malice

Answer 18

D expressly intends to kill V.

Direct intention - R v Mohan - D sets out to cause V’s death.

Indirect intention - R v Woollin - The consequence of D’s actions is virtually certain and D realises this.

Matthews and Alleyne - Confirms that foreseeing death/ GBH doesn’t prove intention itself, merely provides extra evidence from which intention can be found.

Question 19

Implied malice

Answer 19

D intends to cause GBH but actually causes death.

DPP v Smith - Really serious harm

Vickers - If D intends to cause GBH onto V but ends up causing their death, then this will always be sufficient to imply malice aforethought.

Direct intention - R v Mohan - D sets out to cause V GBH

Indirect intention - R v Woollin - The consequence to V is virtually certain and D realises this

Matthews and Alleyne - Confirms that foreseeing death/ GBH doesn’t prove intention itself, merely provides extra evidence from which intention can be found.

Question 20

Coincidence - Single Transaction theory

Answer 20

Single act transaction - MR is present before AR, so MR is stretched to meet AR.

R v Thabo Meli - Ds intended to kill V by beating him with a baseball bat. Ds then thinking V was dead, threw him off a cliff. However, V was not dead and later died of exposure.

Question 21

Coincidence - Continuing act

Answer 21

Continuing act - AR is present before MR, AR is stretched to meet AR.

Fagan v MPC - V (police officer) asked D to park his car. D parked on V;s foot and when she pointed this out, D refused to move the car and left her there.

Question 22

Transferred malice

Answer 22

D has the MR of a crime and performs AR of a similar crime but in a different way than intended.

Latimer - D got into a fight, took his belt off, aiming to hit the person who he was fighting with but instead, the belt bounced back and hit V (landlady)

Pembliton - D aimed to throw a stone at a group of people nearby, but hit a nearby window instead. Transferred malice cannot apply from human to object and vice versa.