PAPER 1: Section B - Fatal Offences against the Person[COMPLETE] Flashcards
Define murder.
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’
What does the Murder Act 1965 say about the punishment for murder?
Must be sentenced to life imprisonment. Part of this is in person and the remainder served on parole
What is the actus reus of murder?
‘The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the Kings/Queen’s peace
Fully explain the three elements of the actus reus of murder
‘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
Explain FACTUAL causation in the sense of murder. Name the appropriate CASE!
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
Explain LEGAL causation in the sense of murder. Name the appropriate CASE!
(novus actus intervienus, thin skull rule
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
What is the mens rea of murder?
‘malice aforethought, express or implied
Fully express the three elements of the mens rea of murder.
‘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)
What is the CASE associated with direct intention?
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.
What is the virtual certainty test and the relevant CASE?
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
What is foresight of consequences? What are the CASES?
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.
What is the CASE associated with indirect intention?
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
What is loss of control?
s54 & s55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
If this defence is satisfied, then they’ll be convicted for manslaughter than murder.
What’s the three stage test for loss of control? o in detail and remember RELEVANT CASE
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.
- 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.
- 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
Quickly list the three part test for loss of control!
- D must have a loss of control, even if it’s NOT sudden!
- There must be a qualifying trigger.
- Would another person of the defendant’s sex and age and a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint react in the same way?