Tutorial 3 - Homicide Flashcards
1
Q
R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566
A
- established that intention to cause GBH was sufficient for murder
- D, motivated by sexual jealousy, repeatedly struck V with a chair, continuing after V was on the floor, killing him. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and appealed the murder conviction, arguing that it was not murder because he did not intend to kill. Conviction held, “the malice aforethought requisite in a conviction of murder could be implied where the accused intended by a voluntary act to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim who died as the result”
2
Q
Natalie Connolly was killed in 2016 by her partner John Broadhurst - murder and ‘rough sex’
A
she had over 40 injuries (internal trauma, fractured eye socket, wounds to face/buttocks/breasts, ‘lacerations of the vagina which resulted in arterial and venous hemorrhage’ after he penetrated her with a bottle of carpet cleaner, he sprayed bleach on her face) and he claimed it was a result of consensual ‘rough sex’, accepting that she was drunk but claimed she consented and he did not want to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Waited until the morning after to have breakfast, text a friend, wash his car, then call emergency services - his argument was accepted by the jury and he was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter (for his failure to summon help) and cleared of murder - sentenced to 3 years 8 month’s imprisonment but served less than 2
3
Q
R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2
A
- loss of control defence
- D can still use the loss of control defence, taking sexual infidelity into account when it was integral to the facts as a whole, being one of a number of factors which caused the loss of control - not always excluded by s55(6)(c) but sexual infidelity alone cannot be a qualifying trigger
- D’s wife told him she was having an affair, he responded saying he was going to commit suicide. She told him he ‘didn’t have the balls’. He killed her by beating her head in with a baton and strangling her. Original judge disregarded the sexual infidelity but on appeal this was a misdirection because it was relevant to the qualifying trigger (the taunting)
4
Q
R v Rejmanski [2017] EWCA Crim 2061
A
- D appealed his murder conviction, attempting to use loss of control as a defence - appeal dismissed, the personality disorder (PTSD) was seen as a relevant circumstance in how provocative the qualifying trigger was but it was not relevant to the degree of tolerance and self-restraint expected by the hypothetical person
- a personality disorder or other condition can be considered in relation to how a reasonable person would respond, but not in a way which impacts the normal powers of tolerance and self-restraint
5
Q
R v Asmelash [2013] 1 Cr App R 33
A
- voluntary intoxication does not form part of the circumstances for loss of control defence
- D stabbed V in the chest, having been drinking together and V had taunted and threatened D. Appealed his murder conviction - judge had told jury that (as a part of the loss of control defence) they should consider whether someone of D’s age and sex with a normal degree of self-restraint and tolerance would have acted the same even if they were sober - appeal dismissed as no evidence that government intended for voluntary intoxication to be taken into account in loss of self control defences
6
Q
R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61
A
- Under s2(1)(b) Homicide Act, substantial means significant or important, not just more than trivial
7
Q
R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281
A
- diminished responsibility does not apply to voluntary intoxication
- D did not claim to be an alcoholic but relied on the fact that the WHO’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems lists acute intoxication as a recognised mental condition - it is impossible to infer from the statute that this was what parliament meant by a recognised medical condition - explicitly did not provide something like this list
- “the presence of a recognised medical condition is a necessary, but not always sufficient, condition to raise the issue of diminished responsibility”
- D stabbed V over 60 times and tried to claim diminished responsibility on the basis that he had been was acutely drunk. D was convicted of murder - voluntary intoxication does not fall under the scope of “recognised medical condition”
8
Q
Attorney-General’s Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245 (HL)
A
- D stabbed his girlfriend whom he knew to be pregnant. 6 days later she went into labour and the child, born grossly premature, survived for 121 days in intensive care but eventually died. D was charged with the murder of the child
- Lord Hope of Craighead - actus reus present and an unbroken chain of causation (the child was born prematurely due to the stabbing and died because of this) means that the fact it was unborn at the time of the act doesn’t prevent actus reus requirements from being met. However the mens rea requirement for murder is not present - the child’s death was unintentional. So, he was guilty of constructive manslaughter because the stabbing was unlawful (assault), dangerous and caused V’s death.
- Lord Muskill - to have this be murder would stretch the laws on murder too far - double transfer of malice (from a person to a foetus which isn’t a person to a baby) and transferred mode
9
Q
R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981
A
- in constructive manslaughter, the unlawful act must constitute an offence on its own, so the corresponding mens rea must be present - a reasonable mistake can vitiate intent
- D pointed a revolver at his friend V and shot him, pulling the trigger as a joke because he was convinced the bullets were not in firing position, but one was brought into position when the trigger was pulled - expert witnesses agreed that this was a common and easy mistake to make.
- D appealed his conviction of constructive manslaughter - judge had not told jury that the mens rea for assault, which was at that time limited to intent, had to be found. Appeal held and conviction quashed as intent for assault was not proved
10
Q
R v Cato [1976] 1 All ER 269
A
- constructive manslaughter
- difficulty determining the unlawful act - judge said it was possession of drugs but Herring suggests a better basis for the constructive manslaughter conviction would be that the injection by the accused was the offence of poisoning - this was an unlawful and dangerous act which caused the death
- D injected V with heroin, who then died due to the drugs. D was convicted of manslaughter and of administering a noxious thing, under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 s.23
- D appealed because the judge did not direct the jury that for him to guilty his contribution to the death had to have been substantial and he had wrongly directed that V’s consent was irrelevant to the charge of manslaughter
- Appeal dismissed - the injection of heroin provided by D was a substantial cause of death and V’s consent is not generally a defence to manslaughter
11
Q
R v Kennedy (No2/2007) UKHL (UK house of Lords) 38 (Causation: Acts of the victim)
A
- constructive manslaughter
- D prepared a syringe of heroin for V (who asked for it) and gave it to V who then injected himself and later died as a result of the heroin
- D convicted of manslaughter for preparing and facilitating V’s taking of heroin - appealed on the grounds that V took the heroin freely, voluntarily and informed
- Appealed and first dismissed (felt that the judge’s direction was correct) but then the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to the Court of Appeal
- the judge had inadequately explained to the jury that the free, voluntary and informed act of V injecting himself would break the chain of causation between D’s supplying of the drugs and V’s death
- Appeal allowed because V’s taking of the heroin counted as a novus actus interveniens and made D’s preparation of the syringe no longer a significant cause of his death
12
Q
DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500
A
- in constructive manslaughter, the test for whether the unlawful act would likely cause harm is objective
- Ds (both 15) pushed a paving stone left by workmen on the parapet of a bridge which killed a railway guard. Convicted of constructive manslaughter but appealed on the basis that they didn’t foresee any harm.
- Appeal dismissed - it was unnecessary to prove subjective foresight by Ds
- Lord Salmon - ‘The test is still the objective test. In judging whether the act was dangerous the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger.’
13
Q
R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59
A
- the principle in R v Meli also applies to manslaughter - the mens rea need to coincide with the action which caused death if the act is part of a connected series of acts which coincided with the mens rea at some point
- to establish constructive manslaughter, the risk of harm has to have been foreseeable by sober and reasonable people
- D knocked V unconscious in a fight, then, thinking she was dead, dropped her body into a river. Medical reports show she died by drowning. Appealed manslaughter conviction - judge told jury that on the question of manslaughter it was irrelevant that D thought V was dead when he threw her in the river - appeal held as this was a misdirection but D’s course of conduct could be seen as a series of acts which led to V’s death - conviction of manslaughter was upheld
- Glanville Williams: ‘If a killing by the first act would have been manslaughter, a later destruction of the supposed corpse should also be manslaughter.’
14
Q
R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79 (noted (1995) LQR 22, (1995) MLR 457)
A
- gross negligence manslaughter
- D, an anaesthetist, was acting as such during an eye operation, which required V to be paralysed, when a tube became disconnected from a ventilator for 6 minutes and V suffered cardiac arrest and died. Convicted of manslaughter of the patient by breach of duty. Appealed on the basis that it wasn’t a “grossly negligent act”
15
Q
R v Broughton [2020] EWCA Crim 1093
A
- gross negligence manslaughter
- D provided his girlfriend V with a mixture of class A drugs at a music festival. When in the forest together, V experienced a bad reaction to the drugs. D attempted twice to get medical assistance but was mistaken as to the name of the forest they were in so medical staff were wrongly directed.
- because he supplied the drugs and remained with her, D owed V a duty of care, which he breached in his failure to properly seek medical assistance
- judge declined to tell the jury that there was a 10% she would have died anyway if she’d received medical assistance so he was entitled to be acquitted unless there was evidence to fill the gap that and the jury being sure that any breach of duty of his had caused or significantly contributed to her death - appeal allowed as it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that his breach of duty had caused the death
16
Q
R v (Honey) Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168
A
- To establish gross negligence manslaughter, a serious risk of death must be reasonably foreseeable without considering the information which D should have had available had they not breached their duty
- D, an optometrist, carried out a routine eye examination on a 7 year old boy and found no cause for concern. 5 months later, V was taken ill at school and died of a buildup of brain fluid. Any competent optometrist should have recognised the condition during the examination - statutory duty to perform a specific examination which would have revealed the issue - D had performed this examination but had viewed the incorrect images from the previous year. Convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and appealed.
- Appeal allowed and D was acquitted - no serious and obvious risk of death
- Sir Brian Levenson P - “if he or she did not carry out a proper examination of the back of Vincent’s eyes, there remained the possibility that signs of potentially life-threatening disease or abnormality might be missed. This is not enough to found a case of gross negligence manslaughter since there must be a ‘serious and obvious risk of death’ at the time of breach” - it was very rare that failing to properly carry out this examination would lead to death so it was not an obvious risk
