Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What constitutes criminal homicide, and what types of acts can lead to it?
Distinguish between murder and manslaughter in terms of criminal homicide.
Criminal Homicide
It occurs when a person unlawfully kills
another person.
It requires only a volitional act (i.e.
conscious act) or omission that causes the
death of another.
It may result from accidental, reckless, or
negligent acts even if there is no intent to
cause harm.
It falls into two categories: murder and
manslaughter.
Murder to kill another with intention or to cause grievous bodily harm
Manslaughter= to kill another without intention.
Define murder and describe what is meant by “malice aforethought.”
Explain the concept of “lawful killing” and give an example where killing may be considered lawful.
Murder
It is legally defined as the unlawful killing
of a human being in the King’s peace, with
malice aforethought.
It is the most serious form of homicide, in
which one person kills another with the
intention to unlawfully cause either death
or serious injury.
It requires the intention to kill or to cause
grievous bodily harm.
It is a crime of specific intent.
Malice aforethought – it is the mens rea
for murder which can be direct or oblique
intent.
Lawful Killing
A killing can be lawful if there is a valid
excuse.
Valid defences such as self-defence can
render a killing lawful.
However, in case of homicide, consent is
not a defence, so the defendant cannot say
the victim agreed to be killed.
Also, assisted suicide is still unlawful in the
UK, as in R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of
Justice (2012).
What are the essential elements that must be proven to establish a murder charge?
How does the law treat the killing of a foetus in relation to criminal homicide?
Elements of Murder
Unlawful – murder must be unlawful
because killing can be lawful under some
circumstances such as self-defence.
Killing – it is the actus reus which can be
an act or omission that causes the death of a
person.
Causation – all unlawful killings are result
crimes and thus causation must also be
established.
Human being – the victim has to be a
human being.
In the King’s peace – killing of alien
enemies in the time of war is lawful.
Malice aforethought – it is the mens rea
for murder which can be direct or oblique
intent.
foetus(= not considered a human being therefore not murder).
Describe a scenario where the chain of causation in a homicide could be broken. (what 2 cases)
How does an act of God or nature potentially break the causal chain in criminal law? Medical treatment?
(What two cases?)
-To break the chain of causation, an
intervening act must be such that it
becomes the sole cause of the victim’s
death so as to relieve the defendant of
liability, as in R v Wallace (2018).
Third party interventions did not break the
chain unless it was a free, deliberate,
informed, voluntary act, which was not
reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable
person, as in R v Pagett (1983).
-An act of God or nature could break the
causal chain if it is entirely unforeseen and
unconnected with the defendant’s act.
An act of the victim if not within the range
of response which might be anticipated
from a victim in his situation, as in R v
Roberts (1972).
Death resulting from any normal medical
treatment must be regarded as caused by
the criminal act, with a rare exception that
treatment designed to repair the harm done
by the criminal act could be regarded as the
cause of the victim’s death to the exclusion
of the defendant’s act, as in R v Cheshire
(1991).
What are the two types of malice aforethought in murder charges?
Explain the “Woollin test” for establishing oblique intent in murder cases.
-It is the intention to kill (i.e. express
malice) or intention to cause grievous
bodily harm (i.e. implied malice), as in R v
Vickers (1957).
-It is a test of oblique intent of murder
where the judge directs the jury to find the
indirect intention to kill if the direct
intention to kill cannot be ascertained.
The first limb is that where the simpledirection is not enough, the jury should be
directed that they are not entitled to find the
necessary intention.
The second limb is that the jury need to feel
sure that death or serious bodily harm was
a virtual certainty (except for some
unforeseen intervention) as a result of the
defendant’s actions and that the defendant
appreciated that such was the case, as in R
v Woollin (1999).
What are aggravating circumstances in the context of murder, and how do they affect sentencing?
Discuss the legal status of euthanasia in the UK and its relevance to murder charges.
Murder with specified aggravating
circumstances, such as premeditation and
exceptional brutality, is often punished
more harshly.
In the US and Canada, these murders are
referred to as first-degree or aggravated
murders.
In English criminal law, murder is not
classified into degrees but always carries a
mandatory life sentence.
The penalty for murder under aggravating
circumstances is often resulted in a longer
non-parole period (i.e. the minimum time
that the offender must serve in prison).
It is defined by the House of Lords as a
deliberate intervention undertaken with the
express intention of ending a life to relieve
intractable suffering.
Euthanasia is still illegal in the UK and
considered murder because the actus reus
and mens rea for murder are satisfied.
However, under the Criminal Justice Act
2003, a belief by the offender that the
murder was an act of mercy would be a
mitigating factor in sentencing.
What is required to prove attempted murder?(What two cases)
What distinguishes voluntary manslaughter from murder, and what are the key defences that can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter?
When a person has the intention to kill and
has done something more than merely
preparatory to commit the killing.
Attempted murder requires an intention to
kill, not merely to cause grievous bodily
harm, as in R v Grimwood (1962).
The requisite intention to kill can be
inferred by the circumstances, as in R v
Walker and Hayles (1990).
-Manslaughter
It is a form of homicide that is less culpable
than murder.
The person who commits the homicide
either does not intend to kill the victim, or
kills the victim as the result of
circumstances that would cause a
reasonable person to become emotionally
or mentally disturbed to the point of
potentially losing control of their actions.
As a crime of basic intent, it does not
require the intention to kill or to cause
grievous bodily harms but requires proof of
fault.
Voluntary Manslaughter
It is the intentional, unpremeditated killing
of another person as a result of a disturbed
state of mind, or heat of passion.
The defendant had no prior intent to kill or
cause grievous bodily harm.
It is a partial defence to murder reducing it
to a manslaughter conviction on the basis
of loss of control, diminished responsibility
and suicide pact.
Define “loss of control” as a defence for voluntary manslaughter.(What two cases for general loss of control - What Act?)
What does “diminished responsibility” entail, and how can it affect a homicide charge?
Loss of Control
It has replaced provocation as the
qualifying trigger for voluntary
manslaughter under the Coroners and
Justice Act 2009.
The qualifying trigger must render
complete loss of control.
It does not matter whether or not the loss of
control was sudden.
The defendant’s conduct must be consistent
with what a reasonable person with a
normal degree of tolerance and selfrestraint
would do in the circumstances, as
in R v Morhall (1995).
The defendant must prove that he was in a
situation of an extremely grave character
and had been seriously wronged, as in R v
Dawes and Hatter (2013).
Diminished Responsibility
Also known as diminished capacity, it is a
potential defence by excuse by which the
defendant argues that although he broke the
law, he should not be held fully criminally
liable for doing so, as his mental functions
were diminished or impaired.
Under the Homicide Act 1957, the
defendant must prove on the balance of
probabilities that he has suffered from an
abnormality of mind at the time of the
killing caused by one of the causes
specified by the Act which substantially
impaired his mental responsibility for the
killing
What are the two types of triggers for ‘loss of control’?
What qualifies Sexual infidelity for loss of control?
Qualifying Trigger
There are two qualifying triggers leading to
loss of control.
The first qualifying trigger is fear of serious
violence, as in R v Clegg (1995).
The second qualifying trigger is an extreme Paranoid personality disorder: as in Martin
(2002)
Postnatal depression, as in R v Reynolds
(1998)
Excessive jealousy, as in R v Vinagre
(1979)
Battered woman syndrome, as in R v
Hobson (1998).
Sexual Infidelity
It prompts a loss of control due to sexual
jealousy, possessiveness or family honour.
However, it is not a qualifying trigger now
unless it constituted circumstances of an
extremely grave character, as in R v
Clinton, Parker & Evans (2012).
Describe the different types of involuntary manslaughter.
What is required to prove gross negligence manslaughter, and how does it differ from reckless manslaughter?
Types of Involuntary Manslaughter
Reckless manslaughter (foresight)
Gross negligence manslaughter (causing
death through lack of care)
Constructive manslaughter (unlawful act)
-Involuntary Manslaughter
It arises where the defendant did not intend
to cause death or serious injury but caused dangerous situation which requires him to act by taking reasonable steps.
-Gross Negligence Manslaughter
It is committed where the death is a result
of a grossly negligent (though otherwise
lawful) act or omission on the part of the
defendant, as in R v Adomako (1994).
The prosecution must show that the failure
which led to the victim’s death was of such
a high degree that nothing but a
manslaughter conviction would address it.
Reckless Manslaughter
It requires an act of killing or omission of
an act that causes the death of a person.
It requires foresight or awareness of death
or serious injury, as in R v Hyam (1975).
It is a blatant disregard for the dangers of a
particular situation without adequate
justification.
It is rarely charged because whenever there
is reckless manslaughter, it will be possible
to charge constructive or gross negligence
manslaughter, both of which are easier to
prove.
It will only be charged if the prosecution
could prove foresight of death or serious
injury, as in R v Hancock & Shankland
(1985).
What are the four essential elements required to establish a charge of gross negligence manslaughter as identified in R v Bateman (1925)?
Explain the concept of “duty of care” in the context of gross negligence manslaughter.
How does the law determine whether a breach of duty of care has caused death in cases of gross negligence manslaughter?
Describe what is meant by “grossness” in gross negligence manslaughter and provide an example.
It includes four elements, as in R v
Bateman (1925).
Duty of care – the defendant owed a duty
of care to the victim.
Breach – the defendant breached that duty.
Causation – the breach caused death.
Grossness – the negligence was so gross
that it showed such a disregard for the life
and safety of others.
-
Define constructive manslaughter and explain the doctrine of constructive malice.
List and explain the criteria for constructive manslaughter as laid out in R v Goodfellow (1986).
Constructive =Also called unlawful act manslaughter,
arises where a person commits an unlawful
and dangerous act which results in
unforeseen or unintended death, as in R v
Creamer (1966).
does not require the defendant to have
foreseen death or grievous bodily harm.
It is based on the doctrine of constructive
malice, whereby the malicious intent
inherent in the commission of a crime is
inferred from the consequences of the
crime.
occurs when a person accidentally kills
someone, without intent, in the course of
committing an unlawful act.
The malice involved in the crime is
transferred to the killing, resulting in a
charge of manslaughter.
R v Goodfellow (1986)- elements =
-Intention – the action must be intentional.
Illegality – the action must be unlawful.
Foreseeability – the action leads the
reasonable person to realise that some other
person is at risk of physical harm.
Causation – the action must be the cause of death.
What does it mean for an act to be considered unlawful in the context of constructive manslaughter(unlawful act manslaughter)What cases outline?
UNLAWFUL ACT
It must be intended by the defendant, as in
R v Mohan (1976), or he knows that the act
if committed is an offence, as in R v
Woollin (1999).
It must be a criminal offence, as in R v
Franklin (1883), so a civil offence will not
suffice.
It cannot be committed by omission even
where there is a duty of care, as in R v
Lowe (1973).
It need not be directed at the victim, as in R
v Larkin (1942).
It need not be directed against a person, as
in R v Goodfellow (1986).
If there is no unlawful act, there can be no
conviction for constructive manslaughter,
as in R v Lamb (1967).
All elements of the unlawful act must be
present, otherwise gross negligence
manslaughter may be charged.
What constitutes a “dangerous act” in the context of constructive manslaughter, and how is this determined?
Discuss how R v Church (1965) and R v Carey & Ors (2006) define and refine the concept of a dangerous act leading to constructive manslaughter.
-This is an objective test which concerns
what a sober and reasonable person would
regard as giving rise to some harm, as in R
v Church (1965).
In R v Carey & Ors (2006), some harm is
further defined as physical harm.
Explain the requirement of a causal connection between the unlawful act and death in constructive manslaughter.
Provide an example of how an individual’s actions can lead to involuntary manslaughter without the intent to kill.(Driver at a traffic light)
There must be a causal connection between
the unlawful act and the death.
The dangerous act must cause death which
would not have occurred but for the act.
For example, a driver who fails to stop his
car at a red traffic light hits someone and
causes death.
There is no intent to kill, so it would be
treated as involuntary manslaughter rather
than murder.
His responsibility for causing death is
constructed from the fault in committing
what might have been a minor criminal act.
