unit 1, section b: authorities Flashcards
who governs murder?
Lord Justice Coke
murder: the D’s conduct causes the unlawful killing of a creature in being during the king’s peace
Lord Justice Coke
murder: contractual duty (omission)
Pitwood
murder: special relationship (omission)
Gibbons and Proctormurder:
murder: voluntarily taking on a duty (omission)
Stone and Dobinson
murder: chain of events (omission)
Miller
murder: duty of an official position (omission)
Dytham
murder: duty of a doctor (omission)
Bland
murder: a reasonable creature in being is a human being that has left the mother’s womb and taken at least one breath
Poultermurder:
murder: once a child is born they are still a reasonable creature in being even if the umbilical cord is not cut
Reeves
murder: a foetus is not a creature in being
Attorney General Reference (No.3 of 1994)
murder: the destruction of a foetus can be a criminal offence under the offence of child destruction
Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929
murder: a person on life support with no brain activity is a reasonable creature in being, withdrawing life support does not break the chain of causation, as they’re dying from the harm the D caused them
Malcherek
murder: there is no time limit on death after the unlawful act or omission, but where it is more than three years after the event, the consent of the Attorney General is needed for prosecution
Law reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
murder: for the killing to be during the king’s peace, it must not be during war
Blackman
murder: D committed the unlawful killing with malice aforethought, expressed or implied
Lord Justice Coke
murder: it was the D’s aim or purpose to unlawfully kill a creature in being (direct intent to kill)
Mohan
murder: it was the D’s aim or purpose to cause GBH (direct intent to cause serious harm)
Vickers
murder: although the D did not intent to kill the V, it was virtually certain from their actions that death or serious harm would occur and they realised this (foresight of consequences)
Woollin
diminished responsibility: what act governs this
S52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
diminished responsibility: was the D’s state of mind so different to an ordinary person that a reasonable man would consider it abnormal
Lord Parker CJ
diminished responsibility: the AMF does not have to be permanent or present at birth
Gomez
diminished responsibility: depression
Gittens
diminished responsibility: irresistible impulses
Byrne
diminished responsibility: battered wife syndrome
Ahluawala
diminished responsibility: alcohol dependency syndrome
Stewart
diminished responsibility: paranoia
Simcox
diminished responsibility: adjustment disorder
Dietschmann
diminished responsibility: schizophrenia
Moyle
diminished responsibility: medical evidence is required of the RMC for a successful defence
Bunch
diminished responsibility: if the medical evidence is uncontested, the murder charge is withdrawn from the jury
Brennan
diminished responsibility: substantial impairment impairs the D’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct
Stewart
diminished responsibility: substantial impairment impairs the D’s ability to form a rational judgement
Simcox
diminished responsibility: substantial impairment impairs the D’s ability to exercise self control
Byrne
diminished responsibility: substantial impairment is more than the minimal/trivial cause
Lloyd
diminished responsibility: there’s a casual link between the AMF and the D’s conduct/omission that led to the killing
S2(1) Homicide Act 1957
diminished responsibility: the AMF must be the significant contributory factor for the D’s conduct/omission that led to the killing
S1(B) Homicide Act 1957
diminished responsibility with intoxication: if the D’s conduct is due to intoxication and they have no AMF, the defence is unavailable
Dowds
diminished responsibility with intoxication: if the D has an AMF, but it is unrelated to intoxication, disregard the intoxication and apply the test as normal
Dietschmann
diminished responsibility with intoxication: if the D has an AMF that is related to alcohol dependency syndrome, apply the moderated test
Stewart
diminished responsibility with intoxication: the D’s drinking of alcohol doesn’t have to be 100% involuntary and it does not have to have caused them brain damage
Wood
diminished responsibility with intoxication: alcoholism
Wood
diminished responsibility with intoxication: the jury must consider a number of factors in deciding whether the D’s RMC has caused a substantial impairment
Stewart
