Murder Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Is there a statutory definition of murder?

A

No

= common law offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What helps define murder?

A

Sir Edward Coke - Institute of the Law of England 1797
‘Unlawful killing of another human being, under the Queen’s (King’s) peace with the intention to kill/ cause serious harm’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Can a killing be lawful?

A

Yes
Certain defences if pleaded successfully (self-defence)
If in time of war

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

How can the AR of killing be performed?

A

Can be by act/ commission

BUT MUST cause death of V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How can the AR of murder be done by an omission?

Give a case to illustrate this

A

Where D failed to act under their legal duty

e.g R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

A

Failed to fulfil their duty as parents

Gibbins daughter died

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What type of crime is murder?

What does this mean?

A

Result crime
There may be a chain of causation
Factual + legal must be proven

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What 2 issues are raised by the fact that the killing must be of a human being?

A
  1. What stage does foetus become a human

2. What stage during death does human become corpse?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

When is a baby/ foetus classed as a human being?

What cases illustrates this?

A

Has to have ‘independent existence than that of mother for it to be considered a creature of being’
R v Poulton (1832)
AG reference (No 3 of 1994)(1997)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Poulton (1832)

A

Mother tied string around neck of baby
Killed it while being born
Ct: for baby to be considered a person, must be fully expelled from body

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994)(1997)

A

D stabbed G.friend, 23 weeks pregnant
She recovered, baby born early (7 months)
Died 4 months later - birth complications
D pleaded G, wounding G.friend with intent
Charged for murder of baby
Acquitted by trial judge
Prosecution appealed
CA: murder = possible; foetus = part mother
Intention towards mother, equivalent to intent directed at foetus
HL: ‘would overstrain doctrine of transferred malice’, at most manslaughter = possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Why was the ‘within a year and a day’ rule abolished?

A

Abolished by Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
Advances in medical knowledge
Life support machines
Now no time limit
But if after 3 years, AG’s consent = needed to prosecute

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What act abolished the ‘year and a day rule’?

A

Law Reform (Year and a Day) Act 1996

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Can D be prosecuted if death occurs more than 3 years after the unlawful act?

A

Yes

Attorney General’s consent is needed to prosecute

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the MR of murder often know as?

A

Malice aforethought

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the MR for murder?

A

Intention to kill/ cause GBH

Includes situations of assisted suicides

17
Q

What are the 2 types of intention?

A
  1. Direct

2. Indirect (Oblique)

18
Q

What is direct intent?

A

Accused wants the result to occur + sets out to achieve it

19
Q

What is indirect intent?

A

(Oblique)

Accused didn’t desire a particular result but but acting the way that they did, they realised that it might occur

20
Q

What is a problem with indirect intent?

A

Has proved difficult to define

Number of cases have sought to define it

21
Q

R v Hyam (1972)

Fire

A

D wanted to scare V
Both in love with same man
D put fire through letterbox
Caused 2 children to die
HL: D foresaw consequences of her actions as highly probably, that meant intention
Even if didn’t want to kill children, knew that it could’ve been highly likely to happen

22
Q

What case overruled the principles set in Hyam?

A

R v Moloney (1985)
Hyam was declared to be bad law
Just; someone foresaw risk didn’t automatically mean that they intended it

23
Q

R v Moloney (1985)

gun contest

A

D = drinking heavily with father
Had disagreement about who could load + fire gun quickest
D loads 1st, claimed not to have aimed
Shot + killed father
Lord Bridge formulated 2 part test:
Was death/ serious injury natural consequence of D’s act?
Did D foresee that?

24
Q

What is the 2 part test that Lord Bridge cam up with in the case of Moloney (1985)?

A
  1. Was death/ serious injury the natural consequence of the D’s act?
  2. Did the D foresee that?
    If ‘yes’ to both, jury can infer intention
25
Q

What case was the virtual certainty test created in?

A

R v Nedrick (1986)

26
Q

What did the CA do in the case of R v Nedrick (1986)?

A

Crystallised rulings of Moloney + Hancock

Created virtual certainty test

27
Q

What are the 2 parts to the virtual certainty test?

A
  1. How probable was the consequence which resulted form D’s voluntary act?
  2. Did D foresee the consequences as virtually certain?
    Only if jury = satisfied D recognised GBH/ death = virtually certain from voluntary act can intention be inferred
    DOESN’T MEAN they intended the result
28
Q

R v Woollin (1999)

baby chocked

A
3 month baby chocked on food
D lost temper
Shook + threw baby across room
Baby hit head
D: 'didn't mean to kill/ cause GBH'
BUT harm = virtually certain
Conviction substituted by HL for MS; trial judge referred to 'substantial risk' rather than 'virtually certain'
29
Q

What is transferred malice?

A

Transferred MR
D intent to kill/ seriously harm V but accidentally harms/ kills another
Can be G of crime against V no. 2

30
Q

What case illustrates the doctrine of transferred malice?

A

Latimer (1886)

31
Q

Latimer (1886)

belt

A

D having argument in pub
Took off belt + swung it
Missed intended V, but wounded a woman
Even though = accident, still convicted of malicious wounding

32
Q

what must be established in murder?

A

Factual + legal causation