murder cases

Question 1

necessity

Answer 1

re A

Question 2

self defence

Answer 2

martin

Question 3

re A held

Answer 3

the COA held that it would be lawful to seperate the twons due to necessity

Question 4

omissions

Answer 4

gibbins and proctor

Question 5

gibbsons and proctor

Answer 5

held both ds were liable for murder by omission gibbins had an automatic duty by relationship as he was the father proctor had voluntarily accepted a duty when she became her fathers partner

Question 6

human being

Answer 6

attorney general’s reference
malcherek and steel

Question 7

attorney general’s reference

Answer 7

held HOL stated that violence towards the foetus which then dies after it has been born can amount murder

Question 8

malcherek and steel

Answer 8

held both convictions were upheld at the time of switching off the machine the v’s were already dead as their brain stems the doctors could not therefore be the cause of death

Question 9

causation in fact

Answer 9

white

Question 10

white

Answer 10

white was aquitted of murder as but for his actions v would of diedanways he was convicted of attempted murder

Question 11

causation in law

Answer 11

pagett

Question 12

pagett

Answer 12

held D was convicted as he was morally responsible more than a minimal cause and he accelerated the death of his girlfriend

Question 13

novus actus interviens

Answer 13

longbottom
roberts
dear
jordan

Question 14

longbottom

Answer 14

act of the victim held d was liable for the v’s death as the accerlated the death and was deemed the moral cause it did not remove causation as it was grossly negligent

Question 15

roberts

Answer 15

act of the victim held causation was not removed as the v’s actions were not considered grossly negligent but reasonable in circumstances

Question 16

dear

Answer 16

act of the victim held d was liable as he significantly contributed to the death his action were the substantial cause

Question 17

jordan

Answer 17

held the treatment was described as being palbaly wrong the actions of the doctor were to be grossly negligent and causation was contriversly broken

Question 18

eggshell conditions

Answer 18

blaue held the coaurt held that causation would not be removed as the v’s religous beliefs were considered to be an egshell condition the d must take the v as he finds them

Question 19

direct intent

Answer 19

mohan

Question 20

mohan

Answer 20

the court stated that direct intent is where the d does everything they can to bring about the desired results

Question 21

oblique intent

Answer 21

woolin

Question 22

woolin

Answer 22

held jury must only give verdict of guilty of murder if they find that the d foresaw death or serious injury as virtual ceratainty