Murder & Partial Defences

Question 1

What is the definition of murder?

Answer 1

‘The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queens peace with malice aforethought, express or implied’

Question 2

Who gave us the definition of murder?

Answer 2

Sir Edward Coke

Question 3

When is a person considered to be dead?

Answer 3

When there is no brain activity / a person is brain dead

Question 4

What case illustrates death?

Answer 4

R v Malcherek

Question 5

Who is a human being?

Answer 5

Someone who can sustain life on their own and is wholly independent of their mother (not a foetus) and is not on life support for brain damage

Question 6

What is meant by ‘under Queens peace’?

Answer 6

Killing under peacetime is illegal, however killing during a war is not a criminal offence

Question 7

What is the mens rea for murder?

Answer 7

Malice aforethought, express or implied

Question 8

What is meant by express malice?

Answer 8

The intent to kill

Question 9

What is meant by implied malice?

Answer 9

The intent to cause GBH

Question 10

What case illustrates an implied malice?

Answer 10

R v Vickers

Question 11

What are the two partial defences that can be used with murder?

Answer 11

Loss of control and diminished responsibility

Question 12

If a partial defence is successful, what would a defendant have their charge dropped to?

Answer 12

Voluntary manslaughter

Question 13

What act deals with loss of control?

Answer 13

s54-s55 of the Coroners & Justice Act 2009

Question 14

What is the first qualifying trigger and what section of the act tells us this?

Answer 14

s55(3), fear of serious violence, D lost control because of a genuine fear of serious violence aimed at them or an identified person

Question 15

What is the second qualifying trigger and which section of the act tells us this?

Answer 15

s55(4), things said or done, this must be of an extremely grave nature and something more that what an ordinary person would consider trivial (justifiable sense of being seriously wronged)

Question 16

What does s55(5) of the act tell us?

Answer 16

Both QTs can be combined to make one

Question 17

What are the three exclusions for QTs found under s55(6)?

Answer 17

A, fear of violence not allowed if the D encouraged V to do something, B, fear of violence not allowed if the D incited the threat, and C, sexual infidelity is never a QT

Question 18

What case showed that sexual infidelity can be considered when combined with at least one QT?

Answer 18

R v Clinton

Question 19

What does s54(2) state in relation to loss of control?

Answer 19

Loss of control does not need to be sudden, there can still be a time delay, but there still needs to be loss of control when they kill

Question 20

Which section of the act states a person cannot use the defence if they kill for revenge?

Answer 20

s54(4)

Question 21

What test must we use in deciding if a person can rely on loss of control?

Answer 21

Would a person of the Ds sex and age and of ‘ordinary tolerance and self-restraint’ reacted in the same or similar way given the circumstances

Question 22

What case shows us that intoxication doesn’t deprive a person of loss of control but is not taken into account?

Answer 22

Asmelash

Question 23

What did the case of R v Rose say?

Answer 23

The defence does not come into play until the actus reus and mens rea of murder have been proven

Question 24

Which acts does diminished responsibility come from?

Answer 24

s2(1) Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s52 of the Coroners & Justice Act 2009

Question 25

What is the definition of an abnormality of mind?

Answer 25

A state of mind so different from that of an ordinary person that the reasonable man would find it abnormal

Question 26

What case establishes the definition of an abnormality of mind?

Answer 26

R v Byrne

Question 27

What section tells us that an AMF must be from a medical condition?

Answer 27

s52(1)(a)

Question 28

What kind of medical conditions can be considered?

Answer 28

Both psychological and physical conditions such as ADS, PTSD, diabetes and brain damage

Question 29

What section of the act covers substantial impairment?

Answer 29

s52(1)(b)

Question 30

What case defines substantial impairment and what is the definition?

Answer 30

R v Golds, it must be important or weighty

Question 31

What three things can be substantially impaired?

Answer 31

Ability to understand the nature of his conduct, ability to form a rational judgement or ability to exercise self control

Question 32

What case can be used to show the D could not exercise self control?

Answer 32

R v Byrne

Question 33

What three things does the ability to exercise self control not include?

Answer 33

A short temper, excitability or depressive illness that isn’t substantial

Question 34

What does s52(1)(c) state?

Answer 34

There must be a causal link between the Ds AMF and the death of the V, this does not need to be the only factor but a significant one

Question 35

Is intoxication alone enough for the defence and what case shows us this?

Answer 35

No, intoxication isn’t enough by itself as shown in the case of Di Duca

Question 36

What happens if the D is intoxicated but has an AMF? What is the case for this?

Answer 36

The intoxication should be ignored and the AMF should be focused on alone, as shown in Dietschman

Question 37

What happens if the D is suffering from ADS (alcohol dependency syndrome) and what case shows us this?

Answer 37

This is a recognized medical condition, therefore should be considered earlier, as shown in R v Wood