Part 3a: Non-sexual offences against the person Flashcards
What is the definition of murder in criminal law?
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being, either with wicked intent to kill or through wicked recklessness.
Actus reus (physical element): Causing the death of another human being.
Mens rea (mental element): Intention to kill or acting with wicked recklessness (indifference to whether the victim dies).
What does wicked intent mean in relation to murder?
Wicked intent refers to the intentional act of killing another person.
In Drury v HM Advocate (2001), the accused was convicted of murder after killing his wife with a hammer, driven by anger over her affair. The court ruled that this was a case of wicked intent.
What is wicked recklessness in the context of murder?
Wicked recklessness occurs when the accused acts with indifference to the life of the victim, even without intending to kill.
In HM Advocate v Purcell (2008), the accused’s dangerous driving, which resulted in the death of a 10-year-old boy, was deemed to be wicked recklessness, and he was charged with culpable homicide instead of murder due to lack of intent to kill.
What is the significance of foresight of consequences in determining murder?
Foresight of consequences means that if the accused foresaw with virtual certainty that their actions would cause harm, this can be treated as intent to kill.
In Petto v HM Advocate (2009), the accused set fire to a building knowing that people lived above, and despite not intending to kill, his foresight of consequences led to his conviction for murder.
How does the case Drury v HM Advocate (2001) relate to wicked intent for murder?
In Drury v HM Advocate (2001), the accused killed his wife after discovering her affair, using a hammer.
The court found that his actions were driven by wicked intent to kill, and he was convicted of murder.
What was the decision in HM Advocate v Purcell (2008) regarding wicked recklessness?
In HM Advocate v Purcell (2008), the accused killed a 10-year-old boy while driving recklessly.
The court ruled that his reckless driving amounted to wicked recklessness and he was charged with culpable homicide, not murder, because there was no intent to kill.
In Petto v HM Advocate (2009), why was foresight of consequences treated as equivalent to intent to kill?
In Petto v HM Advocate (2009), the accused set fire to a flat, knowing that people lived above. Even though he didn’t intend to kill, his foresight of the likely consequences (death or injury from the fire) was treated as intent to kill.
The court convicted him of murder because his deliberate acceptance of risk was seen as an intention to harm.
What is voluntary culpable homicide in criminal law?
Voluntary culpable homicide occurs when a person intentionally causes the death of another but the killing is mitigated by provocation or diminished responsibility.
It is not classified as murder due to the presence of mitigating circumstances.
How can provocation affect a charge of murder?
Provocation can reduce a charge of murder to voluntary culpable homicide if the accused can prove they were provoked to kill.
In Drury v HM Advocate, the court established that provocation could transform what would otherwise be a murder charge into a less serious charge of voluntary culpable homicide.
What is diminished responsibility in the context of voluntary culpable homicide?
Diminished responsibility occurs when the accused suffers from an abnormality of mind, which can reduce their culpability for the killing.
If the accused can prove diminished responsibility, they may be convicted of voluntary culpable homicide instead of murder.
Can a person be convicted of attempted voluntary culpable homicide?
No, there is no such thing as attempted voluntary culpable homicide.
If someone attempts to cause injury but does not complete the killing, the charge would be assault to cause injury rather than attempted voluntary culpable homicide.
What is involuntary culpable homicide in criminal law?
Involuntary culpable homicide occurs when a person causes the death of another without the mens rea required for murder.
This is still regarded as a criminal act due to the negligence or recklessness involved.
What is unlawful act involuntary culpable homicide?
Unlawful act involuntary culpable homicide occurs when the accused kills while committing another unlawful act that is directed at causing harm to another person.
For example, in HM Advocate v Robertson and Donoghue (1945), the accused killed a man while committing an assault. The act of shaking the man was the unlawful act that led to the homicide.
What is lawful act involuntary culpable homicide?
Lawful act involuntary culpable homicide occurs when the accused causes a death unintentionally, but through gross negligence or recklessness.
This could involve a lawful act where the accused did not intend harm, but their actions showed a high degree of negligence.
What is an example of lawful act involuntary culpable homicide?
Tomney v HM Advocate (2012) is an example of lawful act involuntary culpable homicide.
In this case, the accused recklessly discharged a gun, killing his friend while intoxicated. Even though the gun was lawfully owned, the reckless disregard for the danger posed led to a culpable recklessness charge.
What are the different types of road traffic homicides?
Road traffic homicides include:
Causing death by dangerous driving - when someone drives in a manner that is reckless or dangerous and causes the death of another person.
Causing death by driving without due care and attention - when someone’s driving is careless and leads to a fatal accident.
Causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified, or uninsured - when someone drives without the proper legal qualifications or insurance, leading to the death of another.
Can companies be held liable for homicide?
Yes, companies can be held liable for homicide, specifically under the charge of culpable homicide, as demonstrated in the case of Transco PLC v HM Advocate (No. 1). In this case, a company was charged after a fatal explosion, showing that companies can be liable for deaths resulting from negligence or reckless disregard for safety.
What happened in Transco PLC v HM Advocate (No. 1) regarding corporate liability?
In Transco PLC v HM Advocate (No. 1), a gas company was charged with culpable homicide following a fatal explosion caused by the company’s neglect of safety standards. The company knew about the risks, but failed to address them. The Appeal Court held that companies, as legal entities, can be charged with culpable homicide, even though they are not human persons.
How did the Appeal Court in Transco PLC v HM Advocate (No. 1) interpret corporate liability?**
The Appeal Court in Transco PLC v HM Advocate (No. 1) ruled that it is not necessary to identify one individual with mens rea (guilty mind) in a company. Instead, the company’s mindset can be considered collectively from the actions of its employees. However, the prosecution failed to establish liability in this case because they could not prove that a specific individual within the company had the necessary intent or recklessness.
What was the impact of the Transco PLC v HM Advocate (No. 1) case on legislation?
The case of Transco PLC v HM Advocate (No. 1) led to the development of new legislation concerning corporate liability, specifically the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which provides a clearer framework for charging companies with homicide in cases of gross negligence.
What is the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007?
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (UK Parliament) established that companies can be charged with corporate manslaughter if their gross negligence leads to a death. This Act addresses the need for companies to be held accountable for unsafe practices that result in fatal accidents.
What is considered assault in criminal law?
Assault is an attack on the physical person of another, done deliberately with the intent to cause personal injury or to put another person in fear or alarm for their safety. Even attempting to attack someone constitutes assault, whether or not the attack succeeds.
Can assault occur if the intended victim is missed?
Yes, if the attacker misses the intended victim but hits another person, they will still be prosecuted for assault under transferred intent, as seen in the case Roberts v Hamilton. Both the person hit and the person intended to be hit can be treated as victims.
What is the difference between reckless injury and assault?
Recklessly causing injury is not considered assault if there is no deliberate intent to cause injury. For example, in John Roy (1839), an individual broke a window without intending to harm anyone, but caused injury to a girl when glass struck her. They were acquitted of assault because there was no intent to harm.
