Paper 1: murder

Question 1

What is the definition of homicide?

Answer 1

The unlawful killing of a human being

Question 2

What is the charge for murder?

Answer 2

Carries a mandatory life sentence whereas manslaughter gives the judge more discretion (max life)

Question 3

What is the definition of murder?

Answer 3

Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature (person) in being and under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied

Question 4

Actus reus sections

Answer 4

• Unlawful killing
• Of a ‘reasonable person in being’
• Under the Queen’s peace

Question 5

Mens rea sections

Answer 5

• Malice aforethought

- Express or implied

Question 6

AG’s reference no.

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Two types of causation and cases

Answer 7

Factual causation (Pagett, White) 
Legal causation (Kimsey, Cato)

Question 8

Think skull rule and case

Answer 8

The defendant must take the victim as he finds him as he finds him (Blaue)

Question 9

What three ways can break the chain of causation

Answer 9

• An act of a third party
• Victims own act
• A natural but unpredictable event

Question 10

Cases for medical treatment to break the chain of causation

Answer 10

Smith, Cheshire, Jordan

Question 11

Cases for victims own act

Answer 11

Roberts, Williams

Question 12

What is the ‘but for’ test?

Answer 12

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)

Question 13

White (1910)

Answer 13

Facts: D put cyanide in mother’s drink, she died of a heart attack
Held: D not guilty of murder, would’ve died anyway

Question 14

Pagett (1983)

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Cato (1976)

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Blaue (1975)

Answer 16

Facts: D stabbed a Jehova’s witness who refused blood transfusion and died
Held: Thin skull rule

Question 17

Smith (1959)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Cheshire (1990)

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Jordan (1956)

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Roberts (1971)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Williams (1972)

Answer 21

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

Question 22

What case states that there is no need for any malice?

Answer 22

Gray (1965)

Question 23

Vickers (1957)

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Mohan (1976)

Answer 24

A decision to bring about the accused’s desired consequence. It can be said it was D’s main aim, purpose or desire.

Question 25

Who talks about indirect or oblique intention?

Answer 25

Nedrick (1986), Woollin (1998)

Question 26

Who talks about ‘foresight of consequence’?

Answer 26

Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Question 27

Nedrick (1986)

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Woolin (1998)

Answer 28

Approved Nedrick, the HL found in Woollin that foresight of consequence amounts to intention

Question 29

Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Answer 29

‘The defendants foresight of consequences of his actions is no more than evidence from which the jury may find an intent’