Murder

Question 1

What is the actus reus of murder?

Answer 1

Is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queens peace and death occur.

Question 2

Unlawful?

Answer 2

Killing must be unlawful however, certain defences such as self-defence if pleaded successfully will make the killing lawful.

Question 3

Killing?

Answer 3

Actus reus of killing can be by act or omission, but it must cause the death of the victim.

Question 4

Human being?

Answer 4

The killing must be of a human being. There are problems with this, for example at what stage does a foetus become a human being? And at what stage during the death process foes a person become a corpse?

Question 5

Queens Peace?

Answer 5

Means the killing of an enemy during war time is not murder.

Question 6

Death to occur?

Answer 6

Victim must die within a year and a day of the last act or omission done by the defendant to the victim. Advances in medical knowledge meant that this rule was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996. If death occurs after three years then the Attorney Generals consent is needed for prosecution.

Question 7

What is the mens rea of murder?

Answer 7

Malice aforethought, which means either the intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 8

What are the two types of intention?

Answer 8

Direct intent, which applies where the accused wants the result to occur and sets out to achieve it and indirect intent (oblique intention), which applies where the accused did not want a particular result but ion acting as they did or they realised it might occur.

Question 9

What is Transferred Malice?

Answer 9

Where a defendant intents to kill or cause serious injury to one city but accidentally kills another he can be guilty of murder of victim number two.

Question 10

Latimer (1986)

Answer 10

Defendant arguing in a pub, used belt as a weapon, missed, and hit someone else instead. Even though it was an accident he was still convicted of malicious wounding.

Question 11

What is Causation?

Answer 11

Causation is a type pf actus reus which will need to be proven to ensure that the D ‘caused’ the crime to occur. The defendant is only responsible where his acts are both factual and legal cause of the victims death.

Question 12

What is Factual causation?

Answer 12

The prosecution must ask would the victim have died but for the defendant’s conduct? The defendant is not liable if the victim would have died anyway. This is known as the but for test.

Question 13

What is Legal causation?

Answer 13

The defendant’s act must be more than a minimal cause of death. It asks whether the defendant is morally to blame. This is related closely with moral responsibility.

Question 14

White (1910)

Answer 14

A son poisoned his mother by adding cyanide to her drink. Before the cyanide could take effect she died of a heart attack. The court asked would the defendant have died but for the defendants actions. The answer was ‘yes’. The defendant was found guilty of attempted murder but not murder as he had not caused her death.

Question 15

Pagett (1983)

Answer 15

The police shot at the defendant whilst trying to arrest Pagett. He grabbed a girl and used her as a shield. The police shot and a girl was injured. It was held that Pagett had caused the injuries as the police’s reaction was a reasonable response to Pagett’s action.

Question 16

Dalloway (1847)

Answer 16

Defendant was driving a horse and cart down a road without holding on to the reins. A child ran in front of the cart and was killed. The defendant was not liable as he would not have been able to stop the cart in time even if he had been holding the reins.

Question 17

Fagan (1969)

Answer 17

Fagan was being directed to park his car by a police officer. Fagan drove onto the police officers foot. Fagan did not comply with the demands made by the police officer to remove the car off of his foot. He eventually did comply. It could be argued that there had been no mess rea as it could just have been a genuine accident, but he remained on the officers foot knowingly. This was the acts reus and because he remained there he had the mens rea. Which means that the actus reus and mens rea had coincided.

Question 18

Continuing act theory?

Answer 18

This means that all the actions of a defendant can be considered as one act and this fulfils the actus reus.

Question 19

Thabo Meli (1954)

Answer 19

Defendant hit the victim over the heard with a piece of wood. The defendants thought they had killed him and rolled his body off a cliff. The victim died of other causes rather than the inky. The defendants were charged with murder because they had the intention to kill from the outset.

Question 20

Church (1965)

Answer 20

Church had taken a woman in his van to an isolated spot next to a river and proceeded to have sex. They had an argument afterwards because he did not satisfy her sexually. He hit her unconscious. Thinking he had killed her he through her into the river and she drowned. He was found guilty of manslaughter.

Question 21

Smith (1959)

Answer 21

The defendant who was a solider got in a fight at an army barracks and stabbed another soldier. Injured man was taken to the medics but was dropped twice on route. He was given wrong treatment. Once the soldier died the defendant was convicted of murder and appealed contending that if the victim had received the correct medical treatment he would not have died. The stab wound was an operating cause of death and therefore the conviction was upheld.

Question 22

Malcherek and Steel (1981)

Answer 22

Two separate appeals were heard together. In Malcherek the defendant has stabbed his wife.In Steel the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting and beating a woman over the head with a stone. In both cases the victims had been taken to hospital and placed on life support machines. The doctors switched off the machine as both victims were not showing any activity in their brain stem. The defendants sought to argue that the doctors actions constituted nous actus interventions which broke the chain of causation. The conviction was upheld.