Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Murder > Flashcards

Murder Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Definition of murder under the common law

A

the ‘unlawful killing of a human being under the queen’s peace with malice afterthought’ (Coke)

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

Actus Reus

A

The unlawful killing of a human being under the queen’s peace’ (Coke)

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

Under the queen’s peace

A

i.e. not during a time of war (Adebolajo)

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

Human Being

A

Someone capable of independent life

- not an unborn child (Poulton)

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

When does life end?

A

Brainstem test after a life support machine was switched off (Malcherek v Steel)

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

When does life start?

A
  • Has the body be expelled from the mother? (Pouton)
  • Must be in existence independent from the mother (Enoch)
  • Is it breathing through it’s own lungs? (Rance)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Factual Causation

A

(‘but for’ test) but for the defendant’s actions, the death of V would not have occurred (White)

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

Legal Causation

A

Did the defendant’s culpable act cause the death? (Dalloway)

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

Year and a Day Rule

A

Rule was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day) Act.

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

Two occasions where the prosecution need permission of the Attorney General to convict.

A
  • Where there is more than three years between the act and the death
  • Where the individual has already been convicted of that crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

The age of criminal responsibility

A

Dolae Incapace: 10yrs in England and Wales

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

Where there are several causes, the defendant does not need to be the sole cause to be guilty (unless there is a NAI)

A

R v Benge

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

Novus Actus Interveniens

A

A new act that breaks the chain of causation

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

Convicted of murder when using someone as a human shield in a firefight, because the police fired back.

A

This was a natural and foreseeable reaction, so the chain of causation was unbroken
R v Pagett

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

The Defendant was convicted of murder despite V dying as a result of refusing a blood transfusion, and the Defendant no knowing that the Victim was a Jehovah’s witness.

A

The ‘thin skull rule’ (R v Blaue)

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

The Defendant was convicted of manslaughter when a child was scared, ran away, and fell down some stairs.

A

A ‘fight or flight’ act of the victim
He created the dangerous situation.
R v Mackie

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

A possible deliberate suicidal action by V was held not to break the chain of causation, as the injuries inflicted by D were still an ‘operating and significant cause’ of V’s death.

A

R v Dear.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

The original injury was still an ‘operating and substantial’ cause of death even though subsequent medical treatment was negligent.

A

R v Smith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Mens Rea

A

With malice afterthought:

- an intention to kill or cause GBH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Definition of Grievous Bodily Harm

A

Serious or Really Serious Harm (R v Vickers)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Intention

A

Given it’s ordinary linguistic meaning by the jury (Moloney)

- Direct aim or purpose (Smith and Hogan txtbk)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Indirect/ Oblique Intent

A

Was death a virtual certainty of D’s actions?
Did D appreciate this to be the case?
(subjective test)
- If yes, then D did intent to kill or cause GBH (Woolin)

23
Q

Defences for murder

A

Loss of Control

Diminished Responsibility.

24
Q

Voluntary Manslaughter

A

Only a partial defence for murder based of Loss of Control and Diminished Responsibility.
The difference being that the judge has discretion.

25
Q

ss. 54-56 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

A

Replaced ‘provocation’ with ‘loss of control’

The burden is on the prosecution to show that the defence does not apply.

26
Q

The prosecution need only prove that one element is missing for the defence to fail

A

R v Clinton

27
Q

Requirements for Loss of Control set out in s. 54 CJA

A

Jewell

  • Killing someone as a result of losing control?
  • Was there a qualifying trigger
  • Would the ‘reasonable person’ have acted in a similar way
28
Q

Loss of control need not be sudden

A

R v Ahluwalia

29
Q

Loss of control need not be complete

A

R v Croker

- he checked before killing his wife upon reques

30
Q

Fear of Serious violence is subjective as a qualifying trigger

A

R v Martin - claim failed because the burglar was shot as he ran away

31
Q

things said of done which ‘caused D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged’ are qualifying triggers

A

R v Thornton

32
Q

Sexual infidelity cannot be a qualifying trigger

A

R v Clinton

33
Q

A reasonable person in D’s circumstance

A

DPP v Camplin

A person of D’s age and sex, in the circumstances fo D, but with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint.

34
Q

The defence of loss of control will not apply if D was intoxicated at the time.

A

R v Morhall (glue sniffer)

35
Q

The normal person is not a drug taker under the third limb of normal tolerance and self-restraint’

A

Asmelash

36
Q

Self Defence and loss of control

A

very hard to prove

  • Dawes (said she had come at him with a bottle)
  • Barnsdale (it was mere speculation without evidence that the victim came at him with a rolling pin)
37
Q

An attack on an ex-partner was seen as a revenge killing even though he said she had come at him with a bottle

A

Dawes

38
Q

If the Jury properly directed could not have concluded a loss of control, it was mere speculation without evidence that the V came at him with a rolling pin.

A

Barnsdale

39
Q

The trial judge has to evaluate the wight and the quality of the evidence for the jury in respect of the three component elements of the partial defence of loss of control.

A

Gurpinar
Rejmanski
- was there a loss of control
- Did this loss of control happened in a compartmental instance
- whether a person of normal standing would have killed.

40
Q

Diminished Responsibility requirements

s. 52 CJA 1009

A
  • D was suffering from an ‘abnormality of mental functioning’
  • which arose from a recognised medical condition
  • which substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to do certain things
  • and which provides an explanation for D’s acts
41
Q

Burden of proof for diminished responsibility

A

burden of proof is on the defence, on the balance of probabilities (R v Sutcliffe)

42
Q

The classic definition of an abnormality of mind

A

Lord Parker in R v Bryne

- ‘a reasonable man would term it abnormal’

43
Q

A recognised medical condition

A

could be physiological or psychological

- schizophrenia in R v Joyce and Key

44
Q

‘substantial’ impairment should be given it’s ordinary english meaning

A

Lord Hughes in R v Goulds
- an impairment of consequence and weight
Squelch
- less than total but more than trivial

45
Q

‘certain things’ which can be substantially impaired

A

R v Fenton (s. 2 HA 1957)

  • understanding the nature of the act
  • forming a rational judgement
  • exercising self-control
46
Q

An abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it

A

‘causes, or is a ‘significant contributing factor’ in causing D to carry out the conduct
s. 2 HA 1957

47
Q

If a drunkard also had an abnormality of mind caused by a recognised medical condition

A

Alcoholism could indicate that being drunk was not voluntary (R v Tandy)

48
Q

The jury must consider D’s dependency to the drug/ alcohol

A

R v Stewart

49
Q

In addition to having a drug/ alcohol dependency, D must still demonstrate that they were suffering from a recognised medical condition

A

Heavy Binge Drinking was not enough

- R v Dowds

50
Q

Substantial impairment in an impairment of

A

consequence and weight

Lord Hughes in Goulds

51
Q

A consideration of substantial impairment can go right back to childhood

A

Conroy

52
Q

Lack of sleep, exposure and death of family members were considered adequate for diminished responsibility

A

Blackman

53
Q

Substantial means:

A

less than total but more than trivial

Squelch

Criminal Law (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions