PAPER 1: Section B - Fatal Offences against the Person[COMPLETE]

Question 1

Define murder.

Answer 1

Murder is a common law offence (1 mark) defined by Sir Edward Coke CJ (1 mark) - ‘The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s/Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied’

Question 2

What does the Murder Act 1965 say about the punishment for murder?

Answer 2

Must be sentenced to life imprisonment. Part of this is in person and the remainder served on parole

Question 3

What is the actus reus of murder?

Answer 3

‘The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the Kings/Queen’s peace

Question 4

Fully explain the three elements of the actus reus of murder

Answer 4

‘unlawful killing’ - The defendant must have caused the death without legal permission. This is done through an act or an omission.

‘reasonable person in being’ - The victim cannot be a foetus in the womb or brain dead as they’re not ‘in being’.

‘under the Queen’s peace’ - The defendant can’t be found guilty if they kill an enemy in war as it’s not under the Queen’s peace

Question 5

Explain FACTUAL causation in the sense of murder. Name the appropriate CASE!

Answer 5

The prosecution must prove factual causation using the ‘but for’ test.

In the case of White - ‘but for’ D not poisoning V’s drink, would she survive? In this case, the cause of her death was NOT due to the poison, so D was charged for attempted murder ad the attempt basis still stood

Question 6

Explain LEGAL causation in the sense of murder. Name the appropriate CASE!
(novus actus intervienus, thin skull rule

Answer 6

If there’s a Novus actus interveniens, the D is NOT liable. R v Smith - Negligence broke the chain of causation.

Thin skull rule means you leave the victim how you found them (including physical and psychological characteristics i.e. an actual thin skull making them more prone to further injury compared to the normal human being OR refusal for medical treatment)

R v Blaue - Refused medical treatment due to religious beliefs

Neglient medical treatment - R v Jordan

Question 7

What is the mens rea of murder?

Answer 7

‘malice aforethought, express or implied

Question 8

Fully express the three elements of the mens rea of murder.

Answer 8

‘malice aforethought’ - Aforethought means that the murder doesn’t have to be previously planned.

‘express’ - The intention to kill (direct intention)

‘implied’ - The intention to cause GBH (indirect intention)

Question 9

What is the CASE associated with direct intention?

Answer 9

R v Mohan defines direct intent as the decision to being about murder/GBH.
D was charged with attempted ABH against the policeman. It had to be proved that D intended the crime.

Question 10

What is the virtual certainty test and the relevant CASE?

Answer 10

Nedrick / Woolin - If D realised that death or GBH would be virtually certain to happen from the D’s act, then the jury may find they intended to kill, even if this isn’t the case. What the jury says goes

Question 11

What is foresight of consequences? What are the CASES?

Answer 11

When the defendants aim isnt to kill or cause GBH and is something different. However, in achieving the aim a death is caused.

How far can you infer the intention was to cause serious injury or kill from a defendant’s actions?

R v Maloney - As it was a drunken game, his intentions were not to kill or cause GBH so he lacks the men’s rea for murder and was charged for manslaughter instead.

R v Nedrick - The défendant caused a fire killing a child. The jury found him guilty of murder as they were directed to consider if Nedrick knew his act may have caused GBH or a murder. Nedrick appealed as the judge misdirected (jury aren’t entitled to infer the intention unless they felt sure GBH/murder was a virtual certainty of the défendent’s actions.

Question 12

What is the CASE associated with indirect intention?

Answer 12

Indirect intention - The intent to cause GBH is equivalent to the intent to cause murder.

R v Vickers - Charged with murder as he intended to cause GBH towards the old, frail deaf victim.

He appealed in the grounds that the intention to cause GBH is not the same as the intention to cause murder.

The CoA stated that the intent to cause GBH is sufficient enough as the mens rea and GBH directly caused the death. His appeal was rejected

Question 13

What is loss of control?

Answer 13

s54 & s55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

If this defence is satisfied, then they’ll be convicted for manslaughter than murder.

Question 14

What’s the three stage test for loss of control? o in detail and remember RELEVANT CASE

Answer 14

1 . D MUST have a loss of control: s54.2 states it doesn’t have to be immediate, but should NOT be out of revenge.
IBRAMS & GREGORY - Set up a plan to kill D (D was terrorising them) and carried it out days after. The fact they didn’t change their minds in-between that means it’s not relevant.

2. There MUST be a qualifying trigger: s55 states D should fear violence from V against themselves or someone else.
   WARD - The V headbutted D’s younger brother, so D retaliated with a pick axe.
   OR actions or words occurred leading D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wrong.
   ZEBEDEE - It was unreasonable to murder his incontinent dad due to stress - there were other options.

(s.56) If the defendant provoked the fear of serious violence or the things said and done, he CANNOT use the defence.
DAWES - D started punching V and V retaliated. D then stabbed V and it was ruled D started the violence, so cannot claim loss of control.

(s.56) Sexual infidelity is NOT a qualifying trigger.
CLINTON - Was moved to manslaughter due to the OTHER factors. The V didn’t just cheat - she mocked him for looking at a suicide website and belittled him. He was wrong for snapping her dead carcass though.

3. The jury must consider whether another person of the defendant’s sex and age and a NORMAL DEGREE OF TOLERANCE AND SELF RESTRAINT might have reacted the same as D.
   HOLLEY - Murdered his wife. His depression, anxiety and alcohol dependency were deemed irrelevant, so was still charged with murder.
   MOHAMMED - Was very religous but was irrelvant as he still commited a crime that goes against his beliefs.
   REJMANSKI - D suffered from PTSD after his army service. This is only half relevant as his army work would be considered and V made comments about this

Question 15

Quickly list the three part test for loss of control!

Answer 15

1. D must have a loss of control, even if it’s NOT sudden!
2. There must be a qualifying trigger.
3. Would another person of the defendant’s sex and age and a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint react in the same way?

Question 16

State two types of voluntary manslaughter:

Answer 16

• Dimimished responsibility
• Loss of control

under Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Question 17

State the two types of involuntary manslaughter

Answer 17

• Unlawful act manslaughter

- Gross negligence manslaughter

Question 18

What are the three parts for the actus rea of constructive manslaughter (mens rea is 4.)

Answer 18

1. The defendent committed an unlawful act
2. The act must be dangerous
3. The act was the substantial cause of death
4. The mens rea

Question 19

1) What is the unlawful act in constructive manslaghter? (RELEVANT CASES - HINT TRICK QUESTION)

Answer 19

There must be a criminally unlawful act (an omission or civil wrong) - so any NFO ie assualt (hayward) battery (church) OR any criminal damage (newbury& jones)
arson (goodfellow)

No unlawful act in Arobieke as V ran from D and was electrocuted but D did not pose harm via assault /battery etc or chased them.

Question 20

2) What is classified as dangerous in constructive manslaughter? State the relevant CASES (hint: the burnt chip, christianity and shane ****)

Answer 20

The act must be dangerous in the sense that a SOBER, REASONABLE person would realise that it could cause physical harm to another person.

Larkin - Even if it wasn’t intentional, waving a razor around recklessly could cause harm.
Church - Attempting to hide an unconscious body instead of calling the police would cause further damage and harm
Dawson - Was the man robbing v’s store the sole act that caused the heart attack? look at NIA thin skull etc

Question 21

3) What is classified as a substantial cause in constructive manslaughter? State the relevant CASES

Answer 21

The unlawful act must be the substanital cuse of death. It doesn’t necessarily have to be directed at the victim.

R v Mitchell - D had an argument with someone else and pushed them on an elderly woman, who later became the victim as she died from this injury.
This was NOT transferred malice as it was foreseeable that the man would fall, so it didn’t brek the chain of causation.

R v Goodfellow - D firebombed his own council house to intentionally be rehoused, but murdered his own family. The family’s death was all down to his act.

R v Coroin Augustie - D threw a firework in a bus station and killed an old lady. D’s act was the direct and substantial cause of the death

Question 22

What’s the mens rea for constructive manslaughter?

Answer 22

D must have the mens rea for the act itself! So assault = intention or recklessness

D v Newbury and Jones - Intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous and would cause a death.

Question 23

What is diminished responsibiity?

Answer 23

From the s2 of the Homicide Act 1957 ameneded by s52 Coroners and Justice Act.

It reduces murder to manslaughter with sentencing up to the judge

Question 24

What’s the four stage test of diminished respnsibilty?

Answer 24

1. D must be suffering from abnormality of mental functioning.
2. There must be a recognised medical condition
3. The abnormality must have substantially impaired D’s ability to either
   - understand the nature of the defendents conduct
   - exercise self-control
   - form a rational judgement
4. The abnormality must provide an explanation for the defendent’s acts and ommissions in doing the killing.This means it’s causes or is a significant factor in causing the defendent to carry out that conduct

Question 25

1) Explain ‘mental functioning’ in diminished responsiblity? (RELEVANT CASE

Answer 25

D must be suffering from abnormality of mental functioning.

R v Bryne - D had perverted sexual desires which is abnormal. This led to him killing and mutliating a girl in a hostel.

Question 26

2) Explain ‘medical condition’ in diminished responsiblity? (RELEVANT CASES - HINT THERE’S 5)

Answer 26

D must be suffering from a recognised medical condition.

R v Miller - Obsessive jealousy (wife stabbed husband of 40 years)
R v Gittens - Depression (d killed wife and raped and killed daughter)
R v Sanderson - Paranoid (drug addict killed his girlfriend with a cricket bat)
R v Tandy - Alcoholism (drank a bottle of vodka and killed 11 year old)
R v Ahulwalia - Battered woman’s syndrome (set fire to husband)

Question 27

3) Explain ‘substantially impaired’ in diminished responsiblity? What are the three steps? (NO `RELEVANT CASES)

Answer 27

3. The abnormality must have substantially impaired D’s ability to either
   - understand the nature of the defendents conduct
   - exercise self-control
   - form a rational judgement

Question 28

4) Explain ‘abnormality must provide an explanation’ in diminished responsiblity? (RELEVANT CASE)

Answer 28

The abnormality must provide an explanation for the defendent’s acts and omissions in doing the killing.
This means its causes or is a significant factor in causing the defendent to carry out that conduct.

As in Deischmann, intoxication will be ignored.

Question 29

What is gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 29

Gross negligence manslaughter is committed where the defendant owes the victim a duty of care but breaches that duty in a very negligent way, causing the death of the victim.

Question 30

What is the 4 stage test that outlines whther someone can be sued for gross negligence manslaughter. What case does it come from

Answer 30

ADAMAKO STATES THESE 4 PARTS MUST RESULT IN A GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER. Adamako stated the duty of care between dr and patient

1a. Duty of Care / 1b. Breach of Duty - D breached the duty of care towards V
2. The breach of duty caused the death of V
3. The breach of duty amounted to gross negligence

Question 31

1a duty of care (trick question, general

Answer 31

A contract - R v Pittwood

Assuming responsibility for another - R v Stone & Dobinson

Question 32

List all the cases which state a breach oduty of care (1.a duty of care / 1b breach of duty )

Answer 32

D will be in breach of duty by falling below the standard of the ordinry reasonable person

Adamako - Anaesthetist failed to notice a tube leading to a patient’s ventilator had become disconnected.

Andrews - Was speeding on the wrong side of the road and hit a pedestrian who was carried along the bonnet of the car.

Litchfield - Sailed too close to rocks despite knowing the ships engines might fail. Hit the rocks and sunk - killing three rew members

Singh - Was the mintence man of a lodging house but didnt fix a gas leak, resulting in a tenants death.

Wacker- Agreed to bring migrants nto eNGLAND IN HIS LORRY, CLOSING AN AIR VENT DURING A FERRY CROSSING KILLING 58 PEOPLE

Yaqoob - Didn’t maintain a taxi that he owned so a tyre burst whih caused a crash and killed the passeger.

Evans - Put his sitser to bed and dint gain medical assitance

Zaman - dIDN’T TELL CUSTOMER THEIR MEALS CONTAINED PEANUTS. v SPECIFIED NO NUTS WHEN A

Question 33

Outline the causing eath 2 step in gross negligence manslaughter (trick question - the case for factual causation)

Answer 33

R v White - Can be used to establish factual causation

SHould there be a novus actus intevrnies then causatui wukk beed ti e proved.

Question 34

Discuss the 3rd step in gross negligence mansluaghter (3. Gross negligence).
What is the Bateman test? (HINT: GP and at home birth) Mnetion 2 other cases linked (boy scout / train tracks)

Answer 34

3. Gross negligence
   The jury must consider whether the breach of duty should be charateristised as gross negligence and therefore as a crime, rather than a civil matter.

BATEMAN TEST
Performed an at home surgery and didnt send to hospital, wasn’t guilty as this was standard in the 1920’s.

a- the circumstances must have involved an obvious risk of death

b- the conduct of the defendent must have been so bad in all the cirumstances as t amount to in their judgement, a criminal act or omission

R v Finlay - a boy scout. The boy scout leader in not following several safety procedures wasn’t enough o amount to gross negleince

edwards 0 parents allowed their daughte and their friend to play on a railway who were killed by a traon. bad parenting, grossly neglgient and convitced