Murder Flashcards
what is the definition of murder and who defines it
Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought. defined by Lord Coke
What is the actus reus of murder
- Unlawfully
- Killing
- A human being
- Under the Queen’s Peace
What is the mens rea of murder
- Malice Aforethought
Information about ‘Unlawful killing’
A killing is not unlawful if D uses ‘reasonable force’ in self-defense or defence of another
- the killing can be caused by an act or an omission
What happened in Gibbons and Proctor
Facts - D and new wife failed to care fo D’s daughter, daughter was starved to death.
Ratio - An omission can give rise to liability for murder if D has a duty to act. Both D’s had a duty to act because one had a special relationship (father) and other had voluntarily assumed responsibility
Other common law duty cases
Pittwood
Stone and Dobinson
Miller
Information about ‘A human being’
Courts decided that when the foetus has an existence independent of the mother, life begins
What happened in AG ref (no.3)
FACTS - D stabbed pregnant partner, baby was born alive but died.
Ratio - HL stated that where the foetus is injured and the child was born alive but dies due to injuries - this can form the actus reus for murder/manslaughter
What case defines ‘brain dead’ and what happened in it?
Malcherek and Steel
Facts - D stabbed wife who was then put on life support machine in hospital. Doctors wanted to switch off life support.
Ratio - The recognised test is that when a person is ‘brain dead’, doctors are allowed to switch off life support without committing a crime.
Info about ‘Queen’s Peace’
Killing an enemy in the course of war is not murder
Information about causation
Death must be caused by the defendant’s act. Murder is a ‘result’ crime. Where a consequence must be proved, then the prosecution has to show that D’s conduct was
- the factual causation of that consequence
- the legal causation of that consequence
- and that there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
What is factual cause?
Where ‘but for’ D’s actions, would V have died? - BUT FOR TEST
What happened in Pagett
Facts - V died from gunshot from police, D used V as a shield.
Ratio - BUT FOR D’s actions, V would not have died. D guilty
What happened in White
Facts - D gave poisonous milk to V but V did not drink the milk and died of a heart attack
Ratio - D had no factual contribution to V’s death, D no guilty
What is legal cause
where
- D’s act must make more than a minimal contribution to V’s death
- D’s act need not be the sole or even main cause of death provided it is significant and is the substantial cause.
- D must take his victims and he finds them
What happened in Blaue
Facts - V was stabbed by D. V refused a blood transfusion as she was a Jehovah’s witness. She died.
Ratio - Take the victim as you find them, D guilty
What happened in Dear
Facts - D slashed V with knife, V opened his wound and died 2 days later in a suicide attempt
Ratio - The would was still operating and substantial cause of death - Thin Skull Rule applies to V’s mental health, V’s actions did not break the chain of causation. D guilty
What medical intervening act cases are they and briefly explain what happened
Smith - V’s stab wound was still operating and substantial cause of death even though he had been dropped.
Cheshire - V;s gunshot would was significant factor - even though it was not still operating at time of death
HOWEVER - 1 exception =
Jordan - V died from an allergic reaction to drugs given after his wounds were healed, an intervening act will only break the chain if it is sufficiently independent of D’s conduct and sufficiently serious (unforeseeable)
What intervening act cases involves the victims own act and briefly explain what happened
Roberts - V jumped from car to escape D’s sexual advances, V’s actions were foreseeable, D guilty
Willaims - V jumped from car to avoid theft from D, V’s action so extreme, broke the chain of causation
What is the mens rea for murder
Malice aforethought
What does malice aforethought mean
Either the intention to kill or the intention to do GBH
What happened in Vickers
Facts - D broke into cellar and hit and kicked old lady owner who died. D said he did not intend to kill her
Ratio - D intended to cause GBH and V died meaning it is sufficient for malice aforethought
What happened in Cunningham
Facts - D attacked man in pub with chair, V dies later. D convicted of murder
Ratio - Law is clear, sufficient for malice aforethought
What happened in DPP V Smith
Facts - D was involved in robbery, V was a policeman and tried to stop D by clinging on to bonnet. He was shaken off into the path of another vehicle and killed. D was charged with murder. D claimed that he had not want to harm the PO but only wanted to escape.
Ratio - Court held that if the ordinary man realised that his actions would result in really serious harm, then D has intended the consequences
Information about intention
The test for intention is subjective (S8 CJA 1967) - it is based on what D thought, not what a reasonable person would think.
Law recognises two types of intention - direct (D’s aims/purpose/objective - MOHAN) and Indirect (D realises a consequence is virtually certain - WOOLIN)
indirect intent - Woolin, what happened?
D threw 3 month old baby hard against wall - jury has/had to consider if death is a virtually certain consequence of D’s act and D realised it - making it enough for intention.
What happened in Matthew and Alleyene
D’s threw V in fast flowing river despite his protest that he could not swim. D drowned.
- foresight of consequence as a virtual certainty is only evidence, from which a jury may find intention not actually intent.
