a- laws relating to homicide Flashcards
(30 cards)
Actus reus of murder
Any action or conduct which causes death, of a human being.
Murder and unborn children
Unborn children cannot be a victim as they are not classed as ‘in being’. Doesn’t exist independently from mother. R v Poulton (1832) and R v Enoch (1833).
Attorney General’s reference (No.3 of 1994) (1997)- stabbed preg gf
This case shows how doctrine of transferred malice, cannot be applied to foetus. D stabbed his gf (5 and 1/2 months preg). Recovered from wound, 7 weeks later, baby born premature and died after 4 months. Stab wound penetrated the child while still in the womb. D charged w murder, acquitted. HoL, manslaughter was possible at most.
Proving causation for murder
Establish a link between their actions and the death. Jury decides if accused caused death; satisfied actions of accused are factual and legal cause of death.
R v White (1910) (factual causation or ‘but for test’)- poison, mother drink, money.
D put poison in mothers drink intending to kill and inherit money. She was later found dead on sofa, though she had drunk some of drink, she died of a heart attack. D had not used enough for a fatal dose. D had mens rea and actus reus, but did not cause death. Convicted of attempted murder.
Legal causation
Examines actions of d and how they contributed to death. The culpable act of d does not have to be only cause of death.
‘Thin skull’ rule
Accused takes the victim as they find them, even if victim is susceptible to physical or psychological injury, cannot excuse d.
R v Jordan (1956) (intervening events)- stab, injection, intolerance.
V had been stabbed, died 8 days later. New evidence showed that the cause of death was an injection given after the victim had shown before signs of intolerance to medication. Medical treatment= ‘palpably wrong’. Treatment broke chain of causation.
R v Blaue (1975) (chain of causation)- stab, blood transfusion, religious grounds.
D stabbed girl 4 times because she refused to have sex with him. Admitted to hospital, she needed a blood transfusion to save her life, refused to give consent on religious grounds and died a few hours later. Did not break chain as thin skull rule.
Mens rea of murder
Proof of intention to kill or cause GBH. NOT motive.
Malice aforethought
Intention (may be expressed through words, threat, conduct)
Direct intent
D had purpose or desire to cause death
Indirect intent
D states they did not mean to cause death, but believed death was probable as a consequence for their action.
R v Woollin (1998)- baby, skull, choke.
D killed his 3 month old son by throwing him against a wall and fracturing his skull. D claimed actions were unintended. D picked up baby and shook him as he was choking and in frustration threw baby towards a pram. Trial judge directed jury that they might infer intention if d appreciated his acts posed a substantial risk of harm. D convicted of murder but appealed on grounds jury was misdirected. HoL accepted appeal and reduced conviction to manslaughter.
Criticisms of current law and proposals for reform murder
Law commission reviews law, ensure it is fit for purpose. Referred law relating to homicide as a ‘mess’. 2006 ‘Murder, manslaughter and Infanticide’. Criticisms were
no clear def of murder,
terminology was confusing (old-fashioned), advice given to juries on intention changed often and confusing,
cases vary in detail and current law is inflexible, self-defence is problematic.
Recommended new act, did not pass.
Voluntary manslaughter
Committed actus reus, have mens rea and have casual link between d act and death. Mitigating circumstances that reduce murder to manslaughter. This forms a partial defence.
Partial defence 1: Loss of control, provocation
Before, defined by s3 of Homicide Act 1957: ‘provocation’, included a subjective and objective test. Required it to be ‘sudden and temporary’, established in R v Duffy (1949). Later developments introduced the reasonable person test. Other characteristics could relate to the d physical and psychological state, history or circumstances, then began to focus on what could of reasonably been expected. ‘Provocation’ became unclear and had a very wide meaning. Anger was given higher status than other emotions, excluded defendants and was gender bias.
Partial defence 1: Loss of control
Now it need not to be sudden and temp, but there must be a qualifying trigger. If there is significant time delay, judge may decide whether or not defence is available. Was it triggered by fear of serious violence, subjective element. Sexual infidelity alone and revenge cannot be classed as triggers. Triggered by things said/ or done giving d sense of being seriously wronged?
DDP v Camplin (1978)- rape, hit man with pan
D (15 year old boy), had been raped by a middle aged man who then laughed at the boy. Boy lost control and hit the man over the head with chapati pan, causing death. Trial judge instructed jury to consider how a reasonable man would have reacted to provocation. Boy appealed, CoA stated jury should have considered reaction of reasonable 15-year old boy.
R v Ahluwalia (1992) (provocation being sudden and temp)- arranged marriage, violent, threat
D had an arranged marriage, he had been violent towards her for years, assaulted, threatened her on many occasions. One night stated unless she paid bill next day, he would beat her up. When he was asleep she poured petrol over him and set him alight. He suffered severe burns and died 6 days later. D convicted of murder but appealed on grounds of diminished responsibility and provocation. CoA rejected provocation but ordered retrial and was convicted of manslaughter.
R v Clinton (2012)- trial separation, depression, suicide, affair
D and wife were on medication for depression caused by stress. Agreed on trial separation, d was struggling to cope and was showing signs of being suicidal. Wife told him she was having an affair. He asked her to meet so they could tell children together. He had arranged for children to be elsewhere and beat her and strangled her to death. Convicted of murder and appealed on grounds that trial judge had not allowed loss of control as infidelity, should be regarded as qualifying trigger. Appeal= successful. Other factors count as qualifying triggers, sexual infidelity can be taken into account, cannot be alone, if that things said or done amounted to a circumstance of extremely grave character and a justifiable sense of being wronged.
Diminished responsibility-previousdef
S2 of the Homicide Act 1957. Abnormality of mind decided by jury, based on medical evidence, physical and psychological. D ability must have been substantially impaired and gave jury some discretion when deciding whether defence was applicable.
Diminished responsibility- Law Commission Report 2008
Stated it was out of date and failing to keep up with medical developments.
S52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009- Diminished responsibility
Replaced def of dr. The d must be able to demonstrate an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition and substantially impaired the d ability to understand nature of their conduct, or form a rational judgement or exercise self-control. Abnormality of mind must provide explanation for d acts and omissions.
