Paper 1: murder Flashcards
What is the definition of homicide?
The unlawful killing of a human being
What is the charge for murder?
Carries a mandatory life sentence whereas manslaughter gives the judge more discretion (max life)
What is the definition of murder?
Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature (person) in being and under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied
Actus reus sections
- Unlawful killing
- Of a ‘reasonable person in being’
- Under the Queen’s peace
Mens rea sections
- Malice aforethought
- Express or implied
AG’s reference no.
Facts: D stabbed his girlfriend. She recovered from the stab wound but gave birth prematurely who died of a premature death
Held: HL held where a foetus is injured and the child is born alive but then dies as a result of its injuries this can be the actus reus for murder
- The foetus must be living independent of the mother
Two types of causation and cases
Factual causation (Pagett, White) Legal causation (Kimsey, Cato)
Think skull rule and case
The defendant must take the victim as he finds him as he finds him (Blaue)
What three ways can break the chain of causation
- An act of a third party
- Victims own act
- A natural but unpredictable event
Cases for medical treatment to break the chain of causation
Smith, Cheshire, Jordan
Cases for victims own act
Roberts, Williams
What is the ‘but for’ test?
A test to find the link between the defendant’s act and the criminal consequence. D’s act must be the operating and substantial cause of the death, or at least there must be a more than slight and trifling link (Kimsey)
White (1910)
Facts: D put cyanide in mother’s drink, she died of a heart attack
Held: D not guilty of murder, would’ve died anyway
Pagett (1983)
Facts: D used his girlfriend as a human shield, fired at the officers who fired back, girlfriend got shot and killed
Held: D is guilty of manslaughter
Cato (1976)
Facts: Drug addicts prepared heroin and water for each other, one died, other charged with manslaughter
Held: CA period need not have caused the death but was more than minimal
Blaue (1975)
Facts: D stabbed a Jehova’s witness who refused blood transfusion and died
Held: Thin skull rule
Smith (1959)
Facts: D was stabbed, dropped and received poor treatment
Held: stabbing was the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of death, chain of causation not broken, so D guilty
Cheshire (1990)
Facts: D shot V in the thigh and stomach, given a tracheotomoy and V died of complications as a result
Held: D still liable for the death, as treatment was not sufficiently independent from the gunshot wound
Jordan (1956)
Facts: V was stabbed, healing well but given antibiotic which was given again despite being allergic to it, V died
Held: Intervening act was palpably wrong. D not guilty
Roberts (1971)
Facts: V jumped when D made sexual advances.
Held: D held liable for their injuries, as it was reasonable foreseeable to jump out the car
Williams (1972)
Facts: Hitchhiker jumped from a car believing D was stealing wallet and died from injuries
Held: This was not reasonable action and chain of causation broken, D not liable as the act was unreasonable
What case states that there is no need for any malice?
Gray (1965)
Vickers (1957)
Ca upheld conviction for murder. Id D intends to inflict GBH and the V died, this is enough to imply the necessary intention for murder, this was confirmed in Cunningham
Mohan (1976)
A decision to bring about the accused’s desired consequence. It can be said it was D’s main aim, purpose or desire.
Who talks about indirect or oblique intention?
Nedrick (1986), Woollin (1998)
Who talks about ‘foresight of consequence’?
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
Nedrick (1986)
Facts: Poured paraffin through the letterbox with the intent to frighten the woman, child died as a result of the fire
Held: Ca said the jury should ask 2 questions
1) Do they feel that the death or serious injury was the virtually certain result of the accused voluntary act
2) Did the accused foresee that death or serious injury was the virtually certain result of his act?
If yes, the jury can infer the D intended the consequence of his act
Woolin (1998)
Approved Nedrick, the HL found in Woollin that foresight of consequence amounts to intention
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
‘The defendants foresight of consequences of his actions is no more than evidence from which the jury may find an intent’
