WS 4 Murder and Manslaughter Flashcards
What is Coke’s definition of murder?
“unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought”
When is someone dead?
R v Malcherek and Steel [1981] – the irreversible death of the brain stem, which controls bodily functions like breathing.
o AG’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1997]
D stabbed his GF who was pregnant with their child. Stab would penetrated foetus, child born prematurely but died after 120 days. HoL said not murder. Reasoning was that MR the D had relating to mother could not be transferred to the unborn foetus.
R v Poulton
the child must be wholly expelled from the mother’s body and be alive and must have an existence independent of the mother to be capable of being murdered. Independent existence is indep circulation and drawing breath after birth
Law Reform (Year and Day Rule) Act 1996
means that accused can be charged with homicide no matter how long after (the attack)
Factual Causation
- R v White: But for D’s actions/omissions, V would not have died as and when he did. Were the D’s actions/omissions a substantial or significant cause of death? (Facts – D poisoned mother, and she died. However, evidence showed she died of a heart attack unrelated to the poison. He was not liable for her death.)
- R v Cheshire [1991] CA: acceleration of death must be significant (more than minimal). Question for the jury to decide.
o Smith and Hogan give example of what would be minimal (two mountaineers and one cuts the rope)
First case to state on legal causation test
Malcherek & Steel: No legal causation if:
a. An event intervenes between the D’s conduct and the end result unless the event was foreseen/foreseeable; or
b. An act by another person intervenes between the D’s conduct and the end result unless the injuries inflicted by the D were still the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of death
R v Pagett (1983) Court of Appeal
D’s act need not be the sole cause of the V’s death, or even the main cause, it need only contribute significantly to that result (thus can be multiple Ds)
R v Blaue
take the V as you find them (woman refuses blood transfusion on religious beliefs – D can’t argue that the “intervening” act of V’s physical/mental state or beliefs breaks the chain of causation.
R v Watson [1989] CA
o Death from fright, where no physically inflicted injuries? Use reasonably foreseeable test above
Legal Causation medical negligence. Old case with generous judgement?
o R v Jordan [1956] – Where the treatment was normal and death occurred, the D caused death; but where the treatment was not normal the same inference could not be drawn. NB – Generous judgement to the D, and subsequent case law has made it much more likely to secure conviction. Unique circumstances.
- V died in hospital 8 days after being stabbed by the D. D convicted of murder at 1st instance, but evidence that the V had been give poor medical treatment in hospital.
R v Smith [1959]:
is original wound still an operating and substantial cause of death at time of death? Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely part of the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound.
R v Cheshire [1991]:
will only break causation if ‘so independent of the D’s acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that the jury regard the contribution made by D’s act as insignificant’
R v Mckechnie [1992]
CA – D attacked victim, and due to head injuries could not have treatment for stomach ulcer. Died of stomach ulcer. Court of Appeal upheld manslaughter conviction, saying that the chain of causation remained intact: the D’s attack had prevented an operation on the ulcer, which would have saved the V’s life. – consistent with rule in R v Blaue
Facts of Cheshire?
D shot a man, who underwent surgery, including tracheotomy, as a result of gunshot wounds. The V died two months later due to scar tissue at the tracheotomy site obstructing his breathing. The D argued he should not be responsible for the V’s death. Neg med treatment broke chain of causation
4 elements of Diminished responsibility and what statutory authority?
Diminished Responsibility (s.2(1) Homicide Act 1957
1) Abnormality of mental functioning
2) Arising from a medically recognised condition
3) Which substantially impaired the ability of the D to understand:
- the nature of his acts
- form rational judgement
- exercise self-control
4) Which provides an explanation for the D’s acts and omissions in doing or being party to the killing.
Sources for medically recognised conditions?
- World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) e.g. alcohol dependence syndrome; and
- American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)
R v Dietschmann [2003]
• What if a defendant relies on diminished responsibility due to alcohol dependency syndrome but was also drunk at the time of the offence? House of Lords: R v Dietschmann [2003] – If Jury could find impairment of responsibility partly caused by drink, partly by underlying abnormality, it is open to them to uphold the defence of diminished responsibility, provided they were satisfied that despite the drink, his abnormality of mind substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the fatal act.t
