a- laws relating to homicide

Question 1

Actus reus of murder

Answer 1

Any action or conduct which causes death, of a human being.

Question 2

Murder and unborn children

Answer 2

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).

Question 3

Attorney General’s reference (No.3 of 1994) (1997)- stabbed preg gf

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Proving causation for murder

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

R v White (1910) (factual causation or ‘but for test’)- poison, mother drink, money.

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Legal causation

Answer 6

Examines actions of d and how they contributed to death. The culpable act of d does not have to be only cause of death.

Question 7

‘Thin skull’ rule

Answer 7

Accused takes the victim as they find them, even if victim is susceptible to physical or psychological injury, cannot excuse d.

Question 8

R v Jordan (1956) (intervening events)- stab, injection, intolerance.

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

R v Blaue (1975) (chain of causation)- stab, blood transfusion, religious grounds.

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Mens rea of murder

Answer 10

Proof of intention to kill or cause GBH. NOT motive.

Question 11

Malice aforethought

Answer 11

Intention (may be expressed through words, threat, conduct)

Question 12

Direct intent

Answer 12

D had purpose or desire to cause death

Question 13

Indirect intent

Answer 13

D states they did not mean to cause death, but believed death was probable as a consequence for their action.

Question 14

R v Woollin (1998)- baby, skull, choke.

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Criticisms of current law and proposals for reform murder

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Voluntary manslaughter

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Partial defence 1: Loss of control, provocation

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Partial defence 1: Loss of control

Answer 18

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?

Question 19

DDP v Camplin (1978)- rape, hit man with pan

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

R v Ahluwalia (1992) (provocation being sudden and temp)- arranged marriage, violent, threat

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

R v Clinton (2012)- trial separation, depression, suicide, affair

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Diminished responsibility-previousdef

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Diminished responsibility- Law Commission Report 2008

Answer 23

Stated it was out of date and failing to keep up with medical developments.

Question 24

S52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009- Diminished responsibility

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Dr and intoxication

Answer 25

Must consider whether mental impairment had an impact on killing or if it was just intoxication. Intoxication alone is not a defence to murder. If d establishes dr, intoxication is irrelevant. Involuntary intoxication; can be classed as dr (R v Wood 2008): nature and extent of addiction is considered.

Question 26

Cases of dr and intoxication

Answer 26

R v Dietschmann (2003), R v Hendy (2006) and R v Robson (2006).

Question 27

Dr and intoxication- jury

Answer 27

Jury may consider, does d have an abnormality of mind, does it arise from a recognised medical condition, did it impair their ability substantially to understand nature of their conduct or form rational judgement, did it affect exercise of self-control and was the abnormality a significant factor in the killing of the victim.

Question 28

R v Lloyd (1966)- recurrent depression, strangled

Answer 28

Medical evidence showed d suffered from reactive recurrent depression and mental responsibility was impaired, but not to a substantial degree. D strangled his wife and was convicted of murder.

Question 29

R v Egan (1992)- elderly home, drink, murder

Answer 29

D entered an elderly ladys house at night after drinking heavily. He had a mental condition which was classed as an abnormality of mind but the issue was whether the abnormality of mind had impaired his actions or if it was the alcohol. He was convicted of murder as defence of dr is lost if jury believe that but for voluntary consumption of alcohol, he wouldn’t of killed her.

Question 30

R v Tandy (1989)- alcoholic, strangled 11 year old daughter

Answer 30

D was an alcoholic who after drinking a bottle of vodka, strangled her 11 year old daughter. The d took first drink of the day voluntarily and so drinking the whole day is classed as voluntary and dr does not apply. Convicted of murder. Alcoholism can be classed as a disease but only if it caused gross impairment of judgement and drinking was involuntary.