Murder & Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What is the common law definition of murder?
Unlawful killing of a reasonable person who is in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought
What is the actus reus of murder?
Unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace
- Unlawful: all killing unlawful except killing in battle, death penalty, self-defence
- Killing: must cause death, ie. need to establish causation
- A reasonable person in being ie. living person (moment baby born with existence independent of mother)
- Under the King’s peace: ordinary state of affairs in society
What is the mens rea of murder?
With malice aforethought ie. intention to kill or cause GBH
→ Can be direct intent or indirect (oblique) intent
When will a defendant have oblique intent to murder?
- Was death or serious injury a virtual certainty of the defendant’s actions?
- Did the defendant appreciate this to be the case?
nb. indirect intent only applies to murder
What are the 3 steps of establishing causation in murder?
1) Can factual causation be established? (but for D’s actions, death of V would not have occurred)
2) Can legal causation be established? (did D’s culpable act cause the death)
3) Is there a novus actus interveniens which breaks the chain of causation?
What is the full defence to murder?
Self defence
What are the 2 partial defences to murder & the effect if they are successfully argued?
Loss of control + diminished responsibility
→ If successfully argued, D will be liable for voluntary manslaughter instead of murder
When will a person be convicted of voluntary manslaughter?
AR & MR of murder + successfully shows diminished responsib / loss of control
What is the burden of proof in the defence of loss of control?
The evidential burden is on the defendant (ie. sufficient evidence to raise it) → once discharged, burden of proof is on prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt
What are the 3 elements of the defence of loss of control?
- Defendant kills as a result of loss of self-control
- The loss of control had a qualifying trigger
- A person of D’s sex & age with a normal degree of tolerance & self-restraint and in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same or similar way as D did
Loss of control - 1. D loses control
Does the loss of control have to be sudden?
No - loss of control does not need to be sudden or complete
but nb. longer delay more likely to negate provocation
(will not be a loss of control if D acted in a considered desire for revenge)
Loss of control - 2. Loss of control had a qualifying trigger
What are the two possible qualifying triggers?
→ Fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or another
- subjective (eg. R v Martin: D had personality disorder making them abnormally anxious)
→ Things said or done that constitute circumstances of extremely grave character which caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
- objective
think of it as subjective fear + objectively justifiable anger
Loss of control - 2. Loss of control had a qualifying trigger
Will the defence be successful if the trigger is activated by sexual infidelity?
No - sexual infidelity + any excuse to use violence excluded unless there were additional reasons for the loss of control
sexual infidelity is sole reason = defence fails
sexual infidelity part of wider picture = jury can consider all evidence, including the infidelity
Loss of control - 3. A person of D’s sex & age, with a normal degree of tolerance & self-restraint and in the circumstances of D , might have reacted in the same or a similar way
Is this judged objectively or subjectively?
Objectively except for anything about the defendant which means they don’t have a normal degree of tolerance & self-restraint
Is loss of control available as a defence if the defendant was intoxicated at the time?
Will be assessed as whether a sober person do as the defendant did in the circumstances (eg. if awful qualifying trigger, anyone might react as he did)
eg. R v Marshall: D was glue-sniffer - D could not rely on the effect the glue had on him, but court could take into account D’s sensitivity about being goaded for his glue addiction
What is the burden of proof for the defence of diminished responsibility?
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove it on the balance of probabilities
(Nb. if found, mandatory life sentence does not apply)
What are the 4 key requirements for proving diminished responsibility?
- D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning
- Arising from a recognised medical condition
- Which substantially impairs the Defendant’s ability to do certain things
- And which provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts & omissions in killing
All 4 elements must be satisfied
Diminished responsibility - 1. Abnormality of mental functioning
What does this mean?
Spot on the facts
Something less than insanity where D has a ‘state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable person would call it abnormal’
Diminished responsibility - 2. Arising from a recognised medical condition
Does this have to be a mental condition?
No - can be mental or physical, so long as it is medically recognised
Diminished responsibility - 3. Which substantially impaired D’s ability to do certain things
What are the 3 possible ‘certain things’?
Substantially (ie. more than trivial!) impairs the defendant’s ability to:
a. Understand the nature of their conduct
or
b. Form rational judgement
or
c. Exercise self-control
Impairment must be caused by the abnormality of mental functioning
Diminished responsibility - 4. Which provides an explanation for D’s acts &/or omissions in killing
What is the role of medical experts here?
Need to show that there is a causal link between abnormality of mental functioning arising from recognised medical condition & the killing → jury decides as matter of fact
Medical experts can comment on all 4 elements of the defence
- If medical experts disagree, the jury must decide between them
- If the defence expert evidence is unopposed, the jury should only reject if there is evidence to support a different conclusion
Diminished responsibility - 4. Which provides an explanation for D’s acts &/or omissions in killing
What should the jury do if the medical experts agree or disagree?
If medical experts disagree, the jury must decide between them
- If the defence expert evidence is unopposed, the jury should only reject if there is evidence to support a different conclusion
What is the effect of intoxication on diminished responsibility?
Being drunk is not an abnormality of mental functioning
If D also had an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition which had some effect on the killing (eg. alcoholism, some other condition that meant being drunk was not voluntary), being drunk does not necessarily negate defence
Will alcoholism be considered an abnormality arising from a recognised medical condition?
R v Stewart: jury should consider
- extent/seriousness of D’s dependency
- extent to which ability to control drinking was reduced
- whether D capable of abstinence & if so, for how long
- whether D was choosing to drink more than usual for a particular reason
essentially, defence only succeeds where so unable to control that drinking has become involuntary
