murder and the defences to murder

Question 1

Define murder under English law.

Answer 1

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, which encompasses both the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) and the knowledge that one’s actions are likely to cause death or GBH.

Question 2

What is the mandatory sentence for murder?

Answer 2

The mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment, as stated in the Homicide Act 1957. However, the judge has discretion in determining the minimum term to be served before the possibility of parole.

Question 3

What is the difference between murder and manslaughter?

Answer 3

The key distinction between murder and manslaughter is the presence or absence of the element of intent. Murder requires the intention to kill or cause GBH, while manslaughter involves unlawful killing without the specific intent required for murder.

Question 4

What is the defense of diminished responsibility?

Answer 4

Diminished responsibility is a partial defense to murder. It recognizes that a defendant may have a mental impairment that substantially impairs their responsibility for the killing, reducing murder to manslaughter.

Question 5

What is the defense of loss of control?

Answer 5

Loss of control is a partial defense to murder. It recognizes that a defendant may have lost control due to a qualifying trigger, such as fear, anger, or a combination of both, which led to the killing. It reduces murder to manslaughter.

Question 6

What is the defense of automatism?

Answer 6

Automatism is a complete defense to murder. It applies when the defendant’s actions were involuntary, resulting from an external factor, such as a reflex action or a sudden and temporary loss of consciousness.

Question 7

What is the defense of intoxication?

Answer 7

Intoxication can be a defense to murder, depending on whether it negates the defendant’s specific intent. Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to murder but may reduce it to manslaughter if it prevents the formation of specific intent.

Question 8

What is the defense of self-defense?

Answer 8

Self-defense is a complete defense to murder. It applies when the defendant used reasonable force to protect themselves or others from an imminent threat of death or serious harm.

Question 9

What is the defense of duress?

Answer 9

Duress is a defense to murder if the defendant acted under a threat of death or serious harm and reasonably believed there was no other way to avoid it. It provides a partial defense, reducing murder to manslaughter.

Question 10

What is the defense of necessity?

Answer 10

Necessity is a defense to murder if the defendant acted to prevent a greater harm or evil and there was no reasonable alternative. It is a rare defense and can provide a partial defense, reducing murder to manslaughter.

Question 11

What are the different types of intent in murder cases?

Answer 11

There are two types of intent relevant to murder: direct intent and oblique intent. Direct intent refers to the defendant’s clear intention to cause death or serious harm. Oblique intent, also known as transferred malice, occurs when the defendant intends to cause harm to one person but ends up causing harm to another person, leading to the same legal consequences.

Question 12

Explain the concept of malice aforethought in murder cases.

Answer 12

Malice aforethought is the mental state required for murder. It involves the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) and the knowledge that one’s actions are likely to cause death or GBH. The concept of malice aforethought helps distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful killing.

Question 13

What are the key elements of the defense of diminished responsibility?

Answer 13

The defense of diminished responsibility requires proving three elements: (1) the defendant suffered from an abnormality of mental functioning, (2) the abnormality substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct, or to form a rational judgment, or to exercise self-control, and (3) the abnormality provides an explanation for the defendant’s actions in relation to the killing.

Question 14

Discuss the qualifying triggers and objective test in the defense of loss of control.

Answer 14

The defense of loss of control requires demonstrating that the defendant acted in response to a qualifying trigger, which includes fear of serious violence or a justifiable sense of being wronged. Additionally, the defendant must show that a person of the defendant’s sex and age, with a normal degree of self-restraint, would have reacted in the same way.

Question 15

Explain the distinction between automatism and insanity as defenses to murder.

Answer 15

Automatism and insanity are both defenses that may result in a finding of not guilty. Automatism applies when the defendant’s actions were involuntary, such as during a seizure or an act caused by external factors. Insanity, on the other hand, focuses on the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense, requiring a complete loss of control due to a recognized mental disorder.

Question 16

How does the defense of self-defense operate in murder cases?

Answer 16

The defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves or others from an imminent threat of death or serious harm. The force used must be proportionate to the perceived threat and must be reasonably necessary in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

Question 17

Discuss the distinction between duress and necessity as defenses to murder.

Answer 17

Duress operates as a defense when the defendant acted due to a threat of death or serious harm. The defendant must show they reasonably believed there was no safe opportunity to avoid the threat. Necessity, on the other hand, applies when the defendant acted to prevent a greater harm or evil and had no reasonable alternative course of action available to them.

Question 18

What role does intoxication play as a defense in murder cases?

Answer 18

Intoxication is generally not a defense to murder unless it can negate the specific intent required for murder. Voluntary intoxication, such as through alcohol or drugs, is unlikely to provide a defense. However, if the intoxication prevents the formation of specific intent, it may result in a reduced charge of manslaughter.

Question 19

What case established the concept of “foresight of consequences” in establishing intent for murder?

Answer 19

The case of R v. Nedrick (1986) established the concept of “foresight of consequences” as a way to determine intention in murder cases. According to this case, a defendant can be deemed to have intended a consequence if they foresaw it as virtually certain and proceeded regardless.

Question 20

What is the significance of the case R v. Woollin (1998) in murder law?

Answer 20

The case of R v. Woollin (1998) clarified the test for establishing intent in murder cases. It stated that a defendant can be deemed to have intended a consequence if it was a virtually certain result of their actions, and they appreciated this fact.

Question 21

Which case established the defense of diminished responsibility in murder cases?

Answer 21

The case of R v. Byrne (1960) established the defense of diminished responsibility. It held that if a defendant suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impairs their responsibility for the killing, it may reduce murder to manslaughter.

Question 22

What case clarified the requirements for the defense of self-defense in murder cases?

Answer 22

The case of R v. Martin (Anthony) (2002) clarified the requirements for the defense of self-defense in murder cases. It stated that the level of force used in self-defense must be reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be.

Question 23

What case established the defense of necessity in murder cases?

Answer 23

The case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) established the defense of necessity. It involved survivors of a shipwreck who killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. The court held that the defense of necessity could not justify the killing as there was no imminent threat to the lives of the defendants.

Question 24

Discuss the significance of the case of R v. Nedrick (1986) in establishing the concept of “foresight of consequences” in determining intent for murder. How does this case contribute to the understanding of intention in murder law? (8 marks)

Answer 24

The case of R v. Nedrick (1986) is significant in establishing the concept of “foresight of consequences” as a means to determine intent in murder cases. According to this case, a defendant can be deemed to have intended a consequence if they foresaw it as virtually certain and proceeded regardless. This approach contributes to the understanding of intention in murder law by recognizing that subjective intent is not the sole criterion. It allows the courts to infer intent based on the defendant’s foresight of consequences, ensuring that those who intentionally cause harm are held accountable for their actions.

Question 25

Analyze the impact of the case of R v. Woollin (1998) in clarifying the test for establishing intent in murder cases. How does this case refine the definition of intention and its role in murder law? (8 marks)

Answer 25

The case of R v. Woollin (1998) has a significant impact on clarifying the test for establishing intent in murder cases. This case established that a defendant can be deemed to have intended a consequence if it was a virtually certain result of their actions, and they appreciated this fact. By introducing the concept of “foresight of consequences,” the case refines the definition of intention and emphasizes the need for subjective appreciation of the consequences. This test ensures that the law recognizes the mental element necessary for a conviction of murder, balancing the accused’s state of mind with the seriousness of the offense.

Question 26

Evaluate the role of the case of R v. Byrne (1960) in establishing the defense of diminished responsibility in murder cases. How does this case provide a legal framework for assessing mental impairment and reducing murder to manslaughter? (8 marks)

Answer 26

The case of R v. Byrne (1960) plays a crucial role in establishing the defense of diminished responsibility in murder cases. This case held that if a defendant suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impairs their responsibility for the killing, it may reduce murder to manslaughter. The case provides a legal framework for assessing mental impairment by recognizing the existence of an abnormality, the substantial impairment of responsibility, and the causal link between the abnormality and the killing. This defense acknowledges that individuals with diminished responsibility should be held to a lesser degree of culpability, ensuring a fair and just approach to the law.

Question 27

Discuss the significance of the case of R v. Martin (Anthony) (2002) in clarifying the requirements for the defense of self-defense in murder cases. How does this case balance the use of reasonable force with the protection of individuals in dangerous situations? (8 marks)

Answer 27

The case of R v. Martin (Anthony) (2002) is significant in clarifying the requirements for the defense of self-defense in murder cases. This case establishes that the level of force used in self-defense must be reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be. It strikes a balance between the use of reasonable force and the protection of individuals in dangerous situations. By recognizing the subjective belief of the defendant and assessing the reasonableness of their actions, the case ensures that individuals facing imminent threats can protect themselves and others without excessive or disproportionate force.

Question 28

Evaluate the impact of the case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) in establishing the defense of necessity in murder cases. How does this case illustrate the limitations of the defense and the preservation of the sanctity of human life? (8 marks)

Answer 28

The case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) has a significant impact on establishing the defense of necessity in murder cases. This case involved survivors of a shipwreck who killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. The court held that the defense of necessity could not justify the killing as there was no imminent threat to the lives of the defendants. This case illustrates the limitations of the defense, emphasizing that the preservation of the sanctity of human life takes precedence over individual survival. It establishes that the defense of necessity can only be invoked in truly exceptional circumstances, ensuring that the law maintains a high standard of respect for human life.