Murder and manslaughter Flashcards
what is the actus reus of murder?
an unlawful killing
A killing can be lawful in certain circumstances e.g self-defence, where the accused uses no more than that is reasonable necessary in the circumstances
What does s.4 of the criminal justice act 1964 state
- where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill or cause serious injury to some person, whether the person actually killed or not.
- The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequence of his conduct, but this maybe rebutted.
what is the mens rea for murder?
the intention to kill: must prove the purpose was to kill or cause serious injury. Not enough that there was a risk
what is voluntary manslaughter?
They did not intend to kill but:
- Acted in self defence and used more force than was reasonable, but no more force than they honestly believed was necessary
- He was provoked
- Suffered from mental disability that diminished his responsibility
common law doctrine of transfered malice
According to the doctrine, if A intends to kill or seriously injure B, shoots as B but misses, killing C instead, A will be guilty of murder of C.
The doctrine is only applied where the actus reus and mens rea are of the same crime
what are the facts of the case R v Saunders? (Doctrine of transferred Malice)
Saunders wished to poison his wife in order to be free to marry another. He gave his wife the poisoned apple and she took one bite before handing if to their daughter to eat. The child died and saunders was found guilty of murder by virtue of the doctrine of transfered malice.
The felony murder rule
s. 4(1) abolishes the common law felony murder rule, according to which, if A kills B in the course of committing a felony, A is automatically guilty of B’s murder, notwithstanding that he did not intend to kill or even cause serious injury to B.
the presumption of intention
According to s.4(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1964, one accused of murder is presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequence of his actions but this presumption may be rebutted.
what did the criminal appeal court hold in DPP v Douglas and Hayes? - intention for murder
They held that a deliberate action with recklessness as to the consequences was sufficient to establish an intention for murder
what is involuntary murder
Kearns J held in DPP v Horgan that involuntary manslaughter has 2 categories
a. Unlawful and dangerous act
b. Gross negligence
what are the 4 elements of unlawful and dangerous act
- X committed a crime. (Usually involves use of threat or force, but doesn’t need to)
- It was an intentional act
(act was intentional rather than consequence) - The Conduct was dangerous
- Causation
what are the 2 elements of Gross negligence?
- Causation
2. Conduct was criminally or grossly negligent
what was held in the case of AG v Dunleavy regarding gross negligence
Ordinary carelessness wont suffice. it is criminally or grossly negligent if it involves in a high degree, risk or
likelihood of substantial injury to others. In this case, cyclist was knocked down and killed as car was driving
with no lights on, wrong side of road at night with no lights.
S.53(1) Road traffic act 1961
A person shall not drive a vehicle in public place in a manner (including speed) which, having regard to all the
circumstances, of the case (including condition of vehicle, the place and amount of traffic to be expected) is or is
lukely to be dangerous to the public.
S.1(3) Infanticide act 1939
A woman is guilty if
1. By a wilful act or omission she causes the death of the child who is less than 12 months
2. But for this section, would amount to murder
3. At the time of act or omission, the balance of her mind was distracted by reason of her not having fully
recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of a mental disorder consequent upon
the birth of the child.
