Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
Book 2: Chapter 5, Chapter 6
What is the definition of murder?
-it is a common law offence.
-it is the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.
What is the actus reus of killing and a case ?
-actus reus of killing can be an act/omission, but it must cause the death of the victim. A positive, voluntary act.
-GIBBINS AND PROCTOR: actus reus of murder (omission)
What is the causation of murder and cases?
-to be found guilty, D’s act/omission must’ve caused the death.
-factual causation: ‘but for’ D’s acts would the victim have died. WHITE: fc not shown, PAGETT: fc shown
-legal causation: whether D’s acts was the ‘operating and substantial cause’. D can be guilty if his conduct only contributed to the death, but there must be more than a slight/trifling link. CATO: lc shown
What are some other points to consider for causation of murder?
-Thin skull: Blaue (still found guilty)
-V’s own act: Williams (was it sufficiently independent?) D was not guilty in this case
-Intervening act: Cheshire. (D was found guilty)
-D’s act must’ve been more minimal, need not be substantial cause of death: Kimsey
What does ‘reasonable creature in being’ mean?
-for a murder, a person must be killed.
-killing of a foetus is not valid.
-killing of a brain dead person is not valid (Malcherek: not guilty)
What does ‘queen’s peace’ mean?
-killing of an enemy in the course of war is not murder.
What does ‘unlawful’ mean?
-the killing must be unlawful. If it is self-defence or defence of another or if it is in prevention of crime and D used reasonable force in the circumstances, then it is not murder.
What are the criteria for the mens rea of murder and case?
-express malice aforethought, which is an intention to kill OR
-implied malice aforethought, which is intention to cause GBH
-VICKERS: intended GBH (guilty)
What are the two types of intent and cases?
-direct intent: defendant intended the consequence (murder) of the victim (sufficient for MR of murder)
-oblique intent: D’s aim was not to bring about the consequence but the outcome was a virtual certainty from their actions and D was aware of that (sufficient for MR of murder)
-WOOLIN: outcome was virtually certain to occur. Oblique intent (guilty)
Is transferred malice sufficient for MR of murder (and case)?
-D can be guilty of murder if there is transferred malice.
-Latimer (guilty)
What is the sentence for murder?
-an offence convicted of murder will be given the mandatory life sentence.
What is voluntary manslaughter?
-a partial defence to murder, where the killing was carried out when the defendant suffered from diminished responsibility/loss of control.
-if successful, defendant can be offered a discretionary sentence. The burden of proof is on D to prove on the balance of probabilities however.
Where sections are loss of control and diminished responsibility contained under?
-loss of control: S54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
-diminished responsibility: S2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by S52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
What are the following points that need to be considered for loss of control?
-the defendant must have lost self-control.
-there must be a qualifying trigger.
-a person of the same sex/age would have reacted in the same way as D in the same circumstances.
What is the case law for ‘lost self-control’?
-GURPINAR:‘has D lost his ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgement or lost normal powers of reasoning’
JEWELL:loss of self control (NOT GUILTY)
AHLUWALIA:loss of self-control does not need to be sudden.
What does ‘qualifying trigger’ mean?
-can either be a fear of serious violence, things said or done which were of an ‘extremely grave character’ and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
What is the case law for qualifying trigger?
-DAWES:fear of serious violence, inciting violence in order to have an excuse to use force is not sufficient.
-ZEBEDEE: case for things said/done
What is an example of excluded matters for loss of control?
-CLINTON:evidence of sexual infidelity is excluded only in relation to the qualifying trigger. If there is a trigger independent of the sexual infidelity, the sexual infidelity can then come into play when the final question is addressed.
What is the case law for the combined desire for revenge?
-IBRAMS AND GREGORY:if D had time to consider revenge, then the defence was not available.
-BAILLIE:there can be a sudden loss of self-control, even if there was an element or a desire for revenge.
Case law for: ‘A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint would’ve reacted in the same/similar way to D’?
-ASMELASH:voluntary intoxication is not a matter to be considered as part of D’s circumstances.
-DONGEN:D did lose control but a reasonable person would not do the same action.
-CAMPLIN:established ‘A person of D’s sex and age…’
What is the the first point that needs to be satisified for diminished responsibility?
-D must suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning.
-This is said to be, ‘ a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being’ (BYRNE)
What is the second point that needs to be satisfied for diminished responsibility?
-arises from a medical condition.
-REYNOLDS: post-natal depression
-BYRNE: psychotic disorder
What is the third point that needs to be satisfied for diminished responsilbity?
-the condition must substantially impair D’s ability to:
a) understand his conduct
b)form a rational judgement
c) exercise self-control
-shown in the case of LLOYD
-the impairment does not need to be total, but must be more than trivial (GOLDS)
What is the fourth point that needs to be satisfied for diminished responsibility?
-the condition must also provide an explanation for D’s conduct in doing the killing.
-It should be a significant contributory factor in making him act as he did, it does need to be the only cause. (LLOYD)
What is the connection between diminished responsibility and intoxication?
-transient effect of drink/drugs on brain cannot found the defence of diminished responsibility. (DOWDS)
-where D has a pre-existing mental disorder, intoxication does not prevent him/her using the defence; the abnormality of mental functioning does not have to be the sole cause of D doing the killing (DIETSCHMANN)
-alcohol dependency syndrome can be an abnormality of mental functioning (WOOD).
