murder scenario

Question 1

AR

Answer 1

1: “unlawful killing” - Coke
consequence of death caused by and act or omission not authorised by law
Charlie poisons Leo’s water
2: “reasonable creature in being”
V is a living human being at time of D’s act or omission
foetus (ag ref no3 1994) + person on life support (r v malcherek) n/a
Leo human being and died in sleep so brain died
3: “under kings peace”
not authorised to kill within a time of war + committed in uk or abroad (s9 OAPA 1861)
Charlie not acting in military capacity

Question 2

Causation

Answer 2

factual: “but for test” - but for D’s actions the criminal consequence wouldn’t have resulted (r v white and r v pagett)
legal: “more than minimal cause” - D’s action must be more than minimal cause of consequence of death (r v hughes)

Question 3

MR

Answer 3

“malice aforethought express or implied” - Coke
intention to kill or intention to inflict GBH (r v vickers)
GBH = really serious harm (dpp v smith)
direct/indirect intention
direct: D’s aim/purpose + desire to bring about criminal consequence (r v mohan)
indirect: (r v woolin)
transferred malice: mr from intended to unintended victim (r v pembliton)
direct intention to leo but factors of transferred malice rather than indirect intention to eve as didn’t foresee her drinking water; wasn’t virtually certain