Murder Flashcards
What is the definition of
MURDER is the UNLAWFUL killing of a REASONABLE person in BEING
and under the KING’S (or QUEEN’s) PEACE with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, express or implied
What is the Jurisdiction for murder?
In other words to proecsute a British citizen in England or Wales
does he need to have killed someone in England or Wales?
Nope!
A British Citizen be be prosecuted in Engand or Wales even if they killed someone in anoter country
Please breakdown what is required for the ACTUS REUS of MURDER
- The Defendant KILLED
- a REASONABLE PERSON in BEING
- under the QUEEN’S PEACE and
- the killing was UNLAWFUL
Does “killing” for the purpose of Murder have to be an ACT as opposed to an OMISSION (failure to act) ?
Please quote a case to support your answer
KILLING can be either an act or an omission (failure to act).
R V Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
Failure to feed a kid
Explain the facts in R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) and what it goes to prove?
ACTUS REUS OF MURDER CAN BE AN ACT OR AN OMISSION
Father of 7 year old girl and his mistress kept the girl separate
from the father’s other children and deliberately starved her to death.
Father had duty to feed his girl because he was her parent - Mistress undertook to look after the girl so she had a duty to feed her as well - failure to feed girl was deliberate with intention of killing her or causing serious harm
What is meant by CAUSATION in murder?
Murder is a RESULT CRIME so defendant cannot be guilty unless his ACT or OMISSION caused the death
In MURDER what is meant by REASONABLE CREATURE in BEING?
This means a HUMAN BEING so for murder a HUMAN BEING must be killed.
Could a Foetus in a womb classed as a REASONABLE CREATURE IN BEING?
A child has to have an EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT of the MOTHER to be a creature in being
so a FOETUS is not independent of the mother
Could a BRAIN DEAD human being be considered a REASONABLE CREATURE IN BEING?
Well if doctors switch off a life machine this is not considreed to be murder which suggests
that “brain-dead” is the recognised test for death.
However, NO CASES on this point and if a person (not a doctor) switches off a life support machine
ntending to kill the person then this may mean the person committed MURDER
Is there a time limit on when someone has to die from an unlawful act in order for it to be MURDER?
No, thanks to the LAW REFORM (YEAR AND A DAY RULE) ACT 1996
there is no time limit on when a death may occur after an unlawful act
BUT
where the death is more than 3 years from the unlawful act
the consent of the Attorney-General is needed before any prosecution can start
In the definition of MURDER what is meant by the word UNLAWFUL killing?
DUHHHH it has to be unlawful!!!!
So killing someone through s_elf-defence_ or the defence of another
or the prevention of a crime is not unlawful PROVIDED that:
the person used REASONABLE FORCE
What is the MENS REA for MURDER?
It is Malice aforethought, express of implied.
What is meant by Malice Aforethought, express or implied?
This means there are two types of MALICE:
EXPRESS MALICE AFORETHOUGHT - which is the intention to KILL
IMPLIED MALICE AFORETHOUGHT - which is the intention to cause grievous bodily harm
What case shows that a person can be guilty of murder even when they don’t have the intention to kill?
R v VICKERS (1957)
Man - cellar of sweet shop - deaf old lady - hit her several times and kickdher once in the head
Intention to cause GBH + victim dies = MURDER
Explain the facts in R v Vickers (1957) and what does it go to prove?
Vickers - cellar of sweet shop - deaf old lady - punched her several times and kicked her in the head
old lady died - intention to cause GBH sufficient to prove murder
Shows Implied Malice Aforethought - MENS REA OF MURDER
What is meant by Grevious Bodily Harm ?
Name the case that explains the meaning of GBH?
DPP v Smith (1961)
the House of Lords decided that GBH has the natural meaning of
REALLY SERIOUS HARM
Can you have the mens rea to kill or seriously injure a foetus?
OF COURSE NOT because the Foetus does not have a separate existence from the mother
What is meant by OBLIQUE INTENT in terms of murder?
Oblique intent means that the defendant’s main aim was something quite different
from causing the death or serious injury to te victim
What is meant by FORESIGHT OF CONSEQUENCES in terms of murder?
This means that the defendant needs to have had the foresight
that his conduct would also cause death or serious injury
Name three cases regarding FORESIGHT OF CONSEQUENCES
R v Moloney (1985)
Defendent shot step father - drunken challenge to see who was quickest on the draw
R v Nedrick (1986)
Defendent poured parafin through the letter box to frighten the women and child died
R v Woollin (1998)
Approved direction of Nedrick provided the word “find” was used instead of “infer”
What is the name of the case regarding a son shooting his step father
where foresight of consequences was considered?
R V Moloney (1985)
The Defendant shot and killed his steofather in a drunken challenge to see who was quicker on the draw. It was held that foresight of consequences is only evidence from which intention may be inferred
What is the case regarding foresight of consequences involving
a woman pouring parafin through the letter box of another women
and what two questions did the Judge say the Jury needed to ask themselves?
R v Nedrick (1986)
This case stablished the “virtual certainty test” becoming the key test on indirect (oblique) intention
In summary, intent may be inferred if the following conditions are jointly satisfied:
- The result was a virtual certain consequence of the defendant’s conduct, and
- The defendant knew that it was a virtually certain consequence
What case approved of the direction in R v Nedrick (1986) but what did it change?
R v Woolin (1998)
The House of Lords approved the vitualcertainty test in R v Nedrick but changed the word “infer” to “find” so that the Jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention UNLESS
- they feel sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and
- the defendant appreciated that this was the case
Explain Transferred Malice for the purposes of Murder
If D fires a gun at V1 but misses and kills V2 then D is still guilty of murder
even though he did not intend to kill V2
