murder - property offences Flashcards
the view of murder
Within the Criminal Law and justice system, it is considered to be the most serious crime which a person can commit
As well as directly leading to the death of the V, murder removes any chance for that victim to experience anything else
Even amongst homicide, Murder is the most serious – as the D intended to remove life
death penalty and murder
It is due to the gravity of this offence that until relatively recently, the punishment for Murder was the death penalty
The last use of the Death Penalty was in 1955, when Ruth Ellis was killed for the murder of her boyfriend
However, the final abolishment of the Death Penalty came in 1998 – when it was abolished for the use of treason, ending it entirely
current sentencing
Murder currently attracts a mandatory life sentence
This does not equal a lifetime in prison- but is instead made up of ‘tariff period’ which would then be followed with time on license
License means being technically ‘free’ but there are restrictions and monitored – it is a life sentence as these restrictions will remain for life
sentence
The current standard sentence (tariff period) for an ‘unexceptional’ murder is 15 years
defining murder - statue vs common law
Homicide Act 1957
Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
These have all added statutory footing to the offence and cover defences throughout all of the homicide offences
murder definition
“Murder is when a man of sound memory, and in the age of discretion unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied…”
undoing definition
D to unlawfully kill another person under the Queen’s Peace, and to do so, intending to kill or cause GBH.”
changes from the original definition to current standing
Within Coke’s definition, there was a requirement that the person must die within ‘a year and a day’ of the D’s conduct
However, with advances in medical treatment and difficulties in proving causal conduct has meant this is no longer appropiate
law reform (year and a day rule) act 1996
Changed the year and a day rule
As long as causation can be established, D can be liable for murder regardless of the delay between their conduct and and the death of V
Remaining restrictions include considerable delay of three years plus or where the D has already been prosecuted for a non-fatal offence in the same incident
moral issues surrounding murder
The definition does help with establishing what happened between the D and V
Moral issues, however, can cloud judgments and cause issues with this idea
Keep in mind issues such as assisted death, removing pain and similar concerns
AR of murder
Murder is a result crime, and therefore there is no need for specification of what exactly the conduct is that D must perform
It is satisfied by any conduct which causes the death of the V
The type of conduct is irrelevant, it just remaisn that it is done
omissions and murder
It is possible to commit murder by omission, so a failure to do something
As long as the the requirements for that omissions are met, then that is considered to be enough for Murder
Gibbins and Proctor 1918
D1 (Gibbins) and D2 (Proctor) failed to feed D1’s 7-year old child, which then resulted in the death of the child
Both D acted with intent to at least cause serious bodily harm to the V
Held: Both were held to have been guilty of murder, due to their failure to feed (based off a duty to buy food and a familial duty)
necessary circumstances
In order to establish the AR and to align with Lord Coke’s definition, there are certain elements of murder which need to be established
Without these being fully established, the AR will not be satisfied
under the Queens peace
When soldiers kill alien enemies ’in the heat of war, and in actual exercise thereof’
That killing will not be under the Queen’s peace and therefore, not murder
exceptions
However, this is not a wide exception - in order to protect everyone
If a soldier kills another, even an alien enemy in a war zone and it is not done in the heat of war
This will be considered as having been committed under the Queen’s peace and D will satisfy the AR
unlawful killing
For there to be an unlawful killing, it must satisfy all AR and MR elements and be done with no lawful defence
Where the D kills in self – defence, they aren’t liable for murder
V must be a person
The victim must be a human being – and is normally a straightforward discussion
when does a V become a person
An unborn child is not a person within the criminal law
Therefore, if D kills an unborn child they could be charged with child destruction or procuring a miscarriage but cannot commit murder
In Law, a person exists when they are ‘fully expelled from the womb’ and alive
When the D harms a foetus that is subsequently born alive, but then dies from those injuries – D has caused the death of what is a person at the time of death
However, this interestingly does not apply to mothers who injure their foetus’ through their own actions during pregnancy
when does life end
Medical advances have made determining the end of life significantly more difficult
V will be considered dead at the point of ‘brain death’ (complete and irreversible non-functioning of the brain stem)
However, if the V falls short of this – eg a persistent vegetative state, or profound coma – they aren’t considered dead and could still be murdered
causing death
The D acts or omission must be the ones that cause the death
Causing death also includes the acceleration of death, such as killing a terminally ill patient or someone with only a short time to live
Thus when someone intentionally ends the life of D in order to relieve pain or suffering, believing V didn’t have long anyway – D still commits murder
euthanasia and assisted suicide
Although they are hotly contested debates within the public sphere both globally and nationally they remain illegal within the UK
However, medical law does permit withdrawing treatment – generally considered to be good palliative care
But it is unlawful to do anything which will speed up someone’s death – regardless of the reason as to why the euthanasia is desired
MR of murder
Coke’s definition describes the use of ‘malice aforethought’ but that does not apply to any form of modern MR
The use of malicious is not necessarily relevant – there is no need for some manner of evil character
Similarly there is no requirement for ‘aforethought’ – if there is sufficient MR, there is no need for pre-planning
The fact that the MR for murder can be satisfied by an intent to cause GBH is important
This means that murder can be considered to be a constructive liability offence – D’s MR corresponds with an AR with the additional element of causing death
This is a controversial topic – but is focused on the idea that as soon as D intends to harm, they should be responsible for all the consequences which follow
It will only be a murder if their act or omission was performed voluntarily
They must also know or intend that they are killing a person under the Queen’s peace
intention
Intention for murder is the same as it is for any other offences requiring intent
D intends to kill or cause GBH when their conduct is carried out in order to bring about that result (direct intent) or where their conduct is virtually certain, they foresee as a virtual certainty or the jury finds virtual certainty (oblique intent)
defences for murder
Most of the general defences will apply here, with the exception of duress and duress of circumstances
If one of these general defences applies, then the satisfaction of that will lead to a complete acquittal
doctors, medicine and murder
One of the main issues regarding medical care is the use of pain-relieving drugs to terminally ill patients with the doctors knowing this is likely to lead to a reduced life expectancy
It is an incredibly common practice and largely uncontroversial in medical practice
Technically this should be considered a murder – the AR is satisfied from accelerating the death and the MR is satisfied from knowing that end of life is a virtually certain consequence of their conduct
Adams 1957
D, a doctor was charged with murder, having ‘eased the passing’ of several patients, including V with strong, pain relieving drugs
Held: not guilty. There is no special defence for doctors, but ‘he is entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain and suffering even if measures he takes may incidentally shorten life.”
the doctrine of double effect
Intentionally causing a harmful result (death) can be morally defensible where it is a side effect of promoting a good end (pain relief)
It must be that the shortening of life is ‘incidental’
Doing the same thing to collect inheritance for example, would not be double effect
common law defence
In line with Adams, we now seem to have a common law defence which allows protection for doctors who prescribe pain relief with the incidental effect of causing death
partial defences
These form another element of homicide offences, which will be discussed further
These defences, if successful reduce a murder charge to a manslaughter charge
