Murder

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

Common law offence so can’t be found in a statute

Sir Edward Coke (1797) - Murder is committed when someone unlawfully kills another person with an intention either to kill or to do serious harm

Question 2

Actus Reus in short

Answer 2

The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature under the queens peace.

Question 3

1.unlawful killing

Answer 3

Some lawful killings - defences like self defence may mean it is not unlawful. Some killings are authorised e.g wartime or carried out by the police.

Usually death will occur due to positive act by the defendant, sometimes however they are caused by an omission ( r v gibbons and proctor, r v stone and Robinson, r v Miller)

Causation - factual and legal. R v white
R v Jordan “palpably wrong”
R v Roberts victims own acts of “so daft they could not be foreseen”
R v pagett by a third party if not foreseen
R v blaue D must always take his victim as he finds him

Question 4

2. Of a reasonable creature

Answer 4

Must be of a living human

The person must be born -A-G’s Ref No.3 and not dead.

R v malcherek and Steel, switching off life support machine will not break the chain of causation

Question 5

Under the queens peace

Answer 5

Excludes killing during war time

Question 6

Mens rea

Answer 6

Cokes definition - ‘malice aforethought’.
D must either intend to kill or intend to cause GBH
DPP V Smith - ‘grievous’ meaning really serious.
only intention, not recklessness
Two types of intention

Question 7

Direct intention

Answer 7

D intends act and the result

R v mohan direct intent was defined.

Question 8

Indirect / oblique intent

Answer 8

Intends the act but not the result.

R v moloney it was decided it is possible to intend a result you don’t want. Lord bridge gave the example of someone trying to escape by boarding a plant to Manchester. Even though he had no desire to go to Manchester he still intends to go.

R v nedrick it was decided D can be found guilty of murder if death or gbh was a virtual certainty and D knew this was the case.

It is up to the jury but they can infer that d intended the result.

R v woollin, House of Lords confirmed that the test in r v nedrick was correct.

R v Matthews and alleyne, COA confirmed that if death or serious injury was a virtual certainty and D appreciated this was the case, the Jury MAY find intention but don’t have to, it’s merely a rule of evidence