Murder Flashcards
Lord Coke’s definihtion
“Unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied”
Actus Reus
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.
Omission general rule
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
Duty to act situations
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
Causation
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
Factual causation
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.
Legal causation
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.
Intervening acts
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
Types of intervening acts - One
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.
Types of intervening acts - Two
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.
Types of intervening acts - Three
iii) A natural and unpredictable event - Storm
Thin skull rule
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.
Unlawful
R v Martin - Forced used was disproportionate to the threat, therefore, V’s killing was unlawful.
Self - defence would be a lawful killing.
Under the Queen’s peace
DPP v Clegg - a country is not under the Queen’s peace if it has declared war.
Reasonable creature in being - Start of life
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.
Reasonable creature in being - End of life
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.
Mens rea
Malice aforethought.
There are two ways one can prove D’s MR.
Express or implied malice.
Express malice
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.
Implied malice
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.
Coincidence - Single Transaction theory
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.
Coincidence - Continuing act
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.
Transferred malice
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.
