Criminal Homicide

Question 1

explain the meanings of different homicides

1. Homicide
2. Criminal Homicide
   1. Murder
   2. Voluntary Manslaughter
   3. Involuntary Manslaughter
      • Reckless Manslaughter
      • Gross negligent
      • constructive

Answer 1

1. Homicide - Not criminal, D doesn’t have an unlawful faultI killed someone, BUT it wasn’t my fault (it was an accidental, valid defence eg. self-defence, or lawful)
2. Criminal Homicide - The actus Reus is unlawful killing of a human beingI killed someone, AND the law says I’m to blame for it.
   1. Murder -Has the intention(knowing it will WANT TO AND KNOW) to kill OR GBHI meant to kill OR seriously hurt them, and I knew it would happen.
   2. Voluntary Manslaughter - Has the intention(knowing it will) to kill OR GBH . There is ADEQUATE provocationI meant to kill, BUT I might have an excuse or mental condition. (I murdered with partial defence - loss of control, suicide pact, diminished responsibility)
   3. Involuntary Manslaughter - no intention to kill but irresponsible unlawful actI didn’t mean to kill, BUT I am legally responsible for the death.
      • Reckless Manslaughter - foresight(KNOW IT WILL HAPPEN EVEN IF U DONT WANT IT TO) of death or serious injury (eg. arson outside house)I didn’t mean to kill, BUT I knew someone could die and carried on anyway.
      • Gross negligent - just doing something you SHOULD do responsibly carelesssly, negligent to HIGH risk of death or serious injuryI didn’t mean to kill, BUT I was super careless in a situation where I should have been responsible.
      • constructive - neither foresight nor negligence - just the pure act with relevant mens rea (eg. punch and dies)I didn’t mean to kill, BUT I did something illegal and dangerous, and they died.

Question 2

murder v voluntary v involuntary (actus reus and mens rea)

Answer 2

Type Actus Reus (Same) Mens Rea (Different)
Murder Unlawful killing of a human being Intention to kill or cause GBH
Voluntary Manslaughter Unlawful killing of a human being Intention to kill/GBH but with partial defence
Involuntary Manslaughter Unlawful killing of a human being No intent to kill/GBH but reckless, negligent, or unlawful act

Question 3

Actus Reus Criminal Homicide

Answer 3

“an unlawful killing of a human” - actus reus

1. killing
   
   • an act or omission (murder (eg. not feeding baby), gross negligent, sometimes recklessness only)
   • death of a person
   • unbroken chain of causation
2. unlawful
   
   1. lawful only if accidental or there is a valid defence making it lawful
   • You have a choice to refuse treatment tho
3. human“in being”

Question 4

what should actus reus of killing consist ?

Answer 4

• an act or omission (murder (eg. not feeding baby), gross negligent, sometimes recklessness only)
• death of a person
• unbroken chain of causation
  
  • Factual Causation➔ Apply the “but for” test (R v White ):
    • But for D’s conduct, would V have died?
  • Legal Causation➔ D’s act must be a “significant and operative cause” of death (R v Smith [1959]).
    • Thin skull rule applies (R v Blaue ) — take your victim as you find them.
  • Novus Actus Interveniens➔ Causation chain can only break if an independent, unforeseeable event occurs.
    • Medical negligence: unlikely to break chain unless “palpably wrong” (R v Jordan).
    • Victim’s own act: won’t break chain if reasonable and foreseeable (R v Roberts .
  • Policy Point➔ “Causation rules in homicide ensure liability accurately reflects moral blameworthiness and autonomy of victims.” (Hart, 1968)

Question 5

Causation elaboration for homicide

Answer 5

• Factual Causation➔ Apply the “but for” test (R v White [1910]):
  • But for D’s conduct, would V have died?
• Legal Causation➔ D’s act must be a “significant and operative cause” of death (R v Smith [1959]).
  • Thin skull rule applies (R v Blaue [1975]) — take your victim as you find them.
• Novus Actus Interveniens➔ Causation chain can only break if an independent, unforeseeable event occurs.
  • Medical negligence: unlikely to break chain unless “palpably wrong” (R v Jordan [1956]).
  • Victim’s own act: won’t break chain if reasonable and foreseeable (R v Roberts [1972]).
• Policy Point➔ “Causation rules in homicide ensure liability accurately reflects moral blameworthiness and autonomy of victims.” (Hart, 1968)

Question 6

Causation in Homicide Importance with authority

Answer 6

Differentiating Criminal & Non-criminal Homicide using actus reus

➔ “Causation rules in homicide ensure liability accurately reflects moral blameworthiness and autonomy of victims.” (Hart, 1968)

Question 7

When is a killing considered unlawful in criminal homicide?

Answer 7

➔ A killing is unlawful unless it is (a) accidental or (b) justified by a valid defence (e.g., self-defence, necessity).
➔ Otherwise, the actus reus of homicide is satisfied.

Assisted Dying is a highly debated topic here

Question 8

2024 Assisted Dying Bill

Answer 8

➔ Parliament voted in favour of advancing legislation (still in early stages) to allow assisted dying for terminally ill adults, not euthanasia.
➔ Patient must self-administer the final act after doctor’s approval.

Question 9

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Answer 9

Topic:
➔ Refusal of Treatment / Withdrawal of Life Support

Offence:
➔ N/A (Medical omission relevant to homicide causation)

Brief Facts:
➔ Doctors sought court approval to withdraw life support from a patient in a persistent vegetative state.

Legal Importance (Ratio/Precedent):
➔ Withdrawal of futile life-sustaining treatment is lawful and not an unlawful killing.
➔ Distinguishes lawful omission from unlawful active killing.

Golden Nugget to Remember:
➔ Stopping life support for brain-dead or vegetative patients = lawful omission, not murder.

Question 10

R(Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice

Answer 10

Topic:
➔ Assisted Suicide and Lawfulness of Killing

Offence:
➔ N/A (Challenge to Suicide Act 1961)

Brief Facts:
➔ Applicant with locked-in syndrome challenged the criminalisation of assisted suicide under Article 8 ECHR.

Legal Importance (Ratio/Precedent):
➔ Assisted suicide remains unlawful under the Suicide Act 1961.
➔ Judicial deference to Parliament on reforming assisted dying law.

Golden Nugget to Remember:
➔ No right to assisted dying. Reform must come through Parliament, not courts.

Question 11

What is a human “in being” as a victim of criminal homicide?

Answer 11

1. fetus is not alive yet (R v Poulton) The child must have fully left the birth canal and be capable of breathing.
2. but if baby is born and harmed due to womb infections it counts (Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994))
3. but only for no intention offenses (eg. manslaughter instead of murder) (R v Senior)
4. brain dead is not in being and is the legal definition of death (Airdale NHS trust OR R v Malcherek & Steel) pulling plug is not murder

Question 12

Direct Intention — Murder

Answer 12

➔ D acts with the aim of killing or causing GBH(Cunningham implied malice). No need for malice aforethought, motive, or premeditation (Vickers; Inglis).
Golden Nugget: It’s what D intends, not why, that matters.

Question 13

Oblique Intention — Murder

Answer 13

➔ D foresees death or GBH as virtually certain and proceeds anyway (Moloney ➔ Nedrick ➔ Woollin). Foresight is strong evidence of intent, not conclusive proof.
Golden Nugget: Virtual certainty + foresight = jury may infer intention.

Question 14

Duff’s Test (1990)

Answer 14

Oblique intention
➔ If death/GBH is essential to D’s plan (i.e., D would view the result’s absence as a failure), D intended it.
Golden Nugget: Success = death/GBH must be integral to D’s goal.

Question 15

Oblique Intention vs Reckless Manslaughter

Answer 15

➔ Murder = foresight of virtual certainty (Woollin). Manslaughter = foresight of risk (Cunningham; R v G).
Golden Nugget: Risk = manslaughter. Certainty = murder.
Difference - Virtual Certainty

Question 16

Law Commission’s Proposed Classification

Answer 16

➔ 1st degree murder: intention to kill. 2nd degree murder: intention to cause serious injury leading to death.
Golden Nugget: First degree = intent to kill; second degree = intent to seriously injure.

Question 17

standard murder jury direction

Answer 17

➔ Jury must ask: Did D intend to kill? If not, did D intend serious injury?
Golden Nugget: Kill or cause serious injury — either proves murder.

Question 18

Elliot’s Critique on Murder Classifications

Answer 18

➔ Current homicide law treats all killers the same; should distinguish between differing culpability (e.g., drug crime killings).
Golden Nugget: Reform homicide to better match moral blame.

Question 19

R v Vickers

Answer 19

Topic:
➔ Direct Intention — Malice Aforethought

Brief Facts:
➔ D beat an elderly woman causing GBH; she died.

Legal Importance:
➔ Intent to cause GBH suffices for murder; no need for express intention to kill.

Golden Nugget:
➔ Momentary intent to cause GBH = murder.

Question 20

R v Inglis

Answer 20

Topic:
➔ Direct Intention — Motivation Irrelevant

Brief Facts:
➔ D killed her severely disabled son to relieve suffering.

Legal Importance:
➔ Compassionate motives are irrelevant if death was intended.

Golden Nugget:
➔ Killing “out of love” is still murder if death intended.

Question 21

R v Moloney

Answer 21

Topic:
➔ Foresight and Intention (Oblique Development)

Brief Facts:
➔ D shot stepfather after a drunken challenge.

Legal Importance:
➔ Foresight of consequences is evidence of intention, not itself intention.

Golden Nugget:
➔ Foresight helps prove, but is not, intention.

Question 22

R v Nedrick

Answer 22

Topic:
➔ Oblique Intention Development

Brief Facts:
➔ D set fire to frighten someone; child died.

Legal Importance:
➔ Virtual certainty test: Was death virtually certain, and did D realise?

Golden Nugget:
➔ Virtual certainty + D’s awareness = possible intention.

Question 23

R v Woolin

Answer 23

Back

Topic:
➔ Oblique Intention Final Test

Brief Facts:
➔ D threw baby towards cot; baby died.

Legal Importance:
➔ Foresight of virtual certainty is strong evidence from which intent may be inferred.

Golden Nugget:
➔ Death virtually certain + foresight = strong evidence of intent.

virtual certainty test - “feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.”

Question 24

When does murder become voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 24

When a defendant committed a voluntary killing, but a partial defence (loss of control or diminished responsibility) reduces murder to manslaughter, making a mandatory life sentence unjust.

Question 25

Loss of Control — Overview

Answer 25

➔ Under s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009: Loss of self-control due to qualifying trigger + reasonable person test. Focuses on genuine emotional overwhelm, not revenge or premeditation.

Question 26

Diminished Responsibility — Overview

Answer 26

➔ Under s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009: Killing due to a recognised medical condition that substantially impaired D’s mental functioning and explained the killing.

Question 27

Loss of Control vs Diminished Responsibility

Answer 27

➔ Loss of control: emotional loss of control triggered by external events. ➔ Diminished responsibility: internal mental disorder substantially impairing D’s abilities.

Question 28

R v Duffy

Answer 28

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Meaning of Losing Control Brief Facts: ➔ D killed abusive husband after prolonged mistreatment. Legal Importance: ➔ Loss of control = being "so subject to passion as to not be master of one's mind." Golden Nugget: ➔ Loss of temper ≠ loss of control; must lose mental dominance.

Question 29

R v Goodwin

Answer 29

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Frenzied Attack Brief Facts: ➔ D violently attacked V after losing temper. Legal Importance: ➔ Mere frenzied or disproportionate violence does not prove loss of control. Golden Nugget: ➔ Not every violent outburst qualifies as loss of control.

Question 30

R v Dawes, Hatter, Boyer

Answer 30

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Revenge and Judicial Role VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER Brief Facts: ➔ D killed after a plan/revenge mindset developed. Legal Importance: ➔ Loss of control defence fails if D acts out of a considered desire for revenge. ➔ Judge decides whether sufficient evidence exists for jury. Golden Nugget: ➔ Revenge ≠ loss of control. Judge controls evidence stage.

Question 31

R v Ahluwalia

Answer 31

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Delay in Reaction Brief Facts: ➔ D killed abusive husband after enduring years of violence; reaction was delayed. Legal Importance: ➔ Loss of control need not be sudden, but longer delay = less likely defence will succeed. Golden Nugget: ➔ Delay weakens but does not destroy loss of control claim.

Question 32

R v Johnson

Answer 32

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Initial Aggressor Brief Facts: ➔ D provoked violence but V retaliated violently. Legal Importance: ➔ D can still claim loss of control even if he started trouble, if retaliation caused loss. Golden Nugget: ➔ Provoking V doesn't bar defence if V's response triggers true loss of control.

Question 33

R v Clinton

Answer 33

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Sexual Infidelity and Triggers Brief Facts: ➔ D killed wife after revelation of sexual infidelity and taunts. Legal Importance: ➔ Sexual infidelity can be considered if it forms part of the context, even though not on its own a qualifying trigger. Golden Nugget: ➔ While s.55(6)(c) expressly excludes sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger, the Court of Appeal in R v Clinton held that it may be considered where it forms part of a wider context of circumstances giving rise to a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. Therefore, while sexual infidelity alone is insufficient, it is not always entirely excluded from consideration.

Question 34

R v Bowyer

Answer 34

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Excuse vs Real Trigger Brief Facts: ➔ D burgled V and killed him after V insulted D. Legal Importance: ➔ If D uses V’s conduct as an excuse for killing, no qualifying trigger. Golden Nugget: ➔ Excuse ≠ qualifying trigger.

Question 35

R v Myles (provocation to loss of control)

Answer 35

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Third Party Triggers Brief Facts: ➔ Trigger involved fear for another person’s safety, not D personally. Legal Importance: ➔ Third-party threats can be qualifying triggers. Golden Nugget: ➔ Fear for others also valid trigger.

Question 36

R v Clegg

Answer 36

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Fear of Violence and Excessive Force Brief Facts: ➔ Soldier fired fatal shot after danger had passed. Legal Importance: ➔ Force must be reasonable for self-defence; under loss of control, excessive reactions still focus on loss of control, not perfect judgement. Golden Nugget: ➔ Excessive reaction doesn't cancel out loss of control trigger. contrary to self defence - shld be proportional

Question 37

R v Asmelash

Answer 37

Topic: ➔ Loss of Control — Normal Person Standard Brief Facts: ➔ D was intoxicated during killing. Legal Importance: ➔ Loss of control assessed against a normal sober person of D’s age and sex; voluntary intoxication disregarded. Golden Nugget: ➔ Drunkenness not considered when assessing normal tolerance. --- can use diminished responsibility for abnormal cases

Question 38

R v Blackman

Answer 38

Topic: ➔ Diminished Responsibility — Armed Forces Context Brief Facts: ➔ Marine killed a wounded insurgent; argued PTSD and adjustment disorder. Legal Importance: ➔ Recognised medical condition can reduce murder to manslaughter. Golden Nugget: ➔ Mental disorders from extreme environments may support diminished responsibility.

Question 39

R v Dowds

Answer 39

Topic: ➔ Diminished Responsibility — Voluntary Intoxication not alcoholism Brief Facts: ➔ D killed partner while drunk. Legal Importance: ➔ Voluntary acute intoxication not a recognised medical condition for diminished responsibility. Golden Nugget: ➔ Getting drunk ≠ medical condition.

Question 40

R v Wood

Answer 40

Topic: ➔ Diminished Responsibility — Alcoholism Brief Facts: ➔ D killed after drinking binge; had alcohol dependency syndrome. Legal Importance: ➔ Alcohol dependency syndrome can amount to a recognised medical condition. Golden Nugget: ➔ Alcoholism (not just drunkenness) can support diminished responsibility.

Question 41

R v Gittens

Answer 41

Topic: ➔ Diminished Responsibility — Depression Brief Facts: ➔ D killed wife and stepdaughter while suffering severe depression. Legal Importance: ➔ Depression can amount to a recognised medical condition under diminished responsibility. Golden Nugget: ➔ Depression can substantially impair D’s mental functioning.

Question 42

Salim v Public Prosecutor

Answer 42

Topic: ➔ Diminished Responsibility — Premeditation and Mental Disorder Brief Facts: ➔ D killed ex-girlfriend with evidence of planning; argued psychiatric disorder. Legal Importance: ➔ Premeditation does not necessarily bar diminished responsibility if a recognised condition substantially impaired D’s mental responsibility. Golden Nugget: ➔ Even planned killings can qualify if mental disorder explained conduct.

Question 43

Constructive Manslaughter — Overview

Answer 43

➔ Unlawful and dangerous criminal act causing death. ➔ Must involve a positive criminal act (not omission) and be objectively dangerous. Golden Nugget: Dangerous unlawful act + causation of death = constructive manslaughter.

Question 44

Gross Negligence Manslaughter — Overview

Answer 44

Back ➔ Breach of duty of care causing death in a grossly negligent way. ➔ Risk must relate to death, not merely serious injury. Golden Nugget: Extreme carelessness causing death is gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 45

R v Lamb

Answer 45

Topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — Core Offence Needed Brief Facts: ➔ D jokingly pointed revolver at friend; gun fired unexpectedly, killing him. Legal Importance: ➔ No base unlawful act if no assault; no manslaughter without core criminal offence. Golden Nugget: ➔ No crime, no manslaughter.

Question 46

R v Grey

Answer 46

Topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — Must Establish Base Offence Brief Facts: ➔ D physically restrained V in a way leading to death; base criminal act had to be clear. Legal Importance: ➔ Prosecution must establish the unlawful act clearly to ground manslaughter. Golden Nugget: ➔ Always identify the underlying criminal act.

Question 47

R v Jennings

Answer 47

Topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — Correct Offence Must Be Charged Brief Facts: ➔ Confusion over which offence underpinned D’s unlawful act. Legal Importance: ➔ Prosecution must properly identify and prove the specific criminal offence. Golden Nugget: ➔ Precision matters — wrong base offence = no liability.

Question 48

R v Franklin

Answer 48

Topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — Civil Wrong Not Enough Brief Facts: ➔ D threw a box into sea, hitting and killing V. Legal Importance: ➔ Only a criminal act (not a civil wrong) can ground unlawful act manslaughter. Golden Nugget: ➔ Civil wrong ≠ unlawful act manslaughter.

Question 49

R v Andrews

Answer 49

Topic: ➔ Distinction Between Lawful Acts and Criminal Acts Brief Facts: ➔ D killed a pedestrian while driving carelessly. Legal Importance: ➔ Careless lawful acts are not enough — the base act must itself be criminal. Golden Nugget: ➔ Carelessness ≠ criminality for manslaughter.

Question 50

R v Church

Answer 50

Topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — Objective Dangerousness Test Brief Facts: ➔ D attacked V and believed her dead; later threw her into river where she drowned. Legal Importance: ➔ Unlawful act must be objectively dangerous — recognised risk of some harm. Golden Nugget: ➔ Would a reasonable person foresee some harm?

Question 51

R v Dawson

Answer 51

topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — Objective Danger Brief Facts: ➔ D used toy gun in robbery; V suffered fatal heart attack. Legal Importance: ➔ Objective standard: would a reasonable person have seen risk of harm? Golden Nugget: ➔ Fear-induced harm counts if objectively foreseeable.

Question 52

R v Mitchell

Answer 52

Topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — Third Party Harm Brief Facts: ➔ D punched a man who fell onto V, causing V's death. Legal Importance: ➔ Liability attaches even where harm caused to unintended victims. Golden Nugget: ➔ Transferring danger ≠ escaping liability.

Question 53

R v Scarlett

Answer 53

Topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — Causation Brief Facts: ➔ D ejected V from pub; V fell and died. Legal Importance: ➔ Must apply "but for" and legal causation principles. Golden Nugget: ➔ Causation must be clear and not too remote.

Question 54

R v Lowe

Answer 54

Topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — No Omission Brief Facts: ➔ D failed to seek help for sick child; child died. Legal Importance: ➔ Unlawful act manslaughter must be based on a positive act, not an omission. Golden Nugget: ➔ Omissions cannot ground constructive manslaughter.

Question 55

R v Newbury and Jones

Answer 55

Topic: ➔ Constructive Manslaughter — Objective Dangerousness Brief Facts: ➔ Teenage boys threw paving stone onto a train, killing the guard. Legal Importance: ➔ Objective test: reasonable person would recognise risk of harm. Golden Nugget: ➔ Objective dangerousness, no need for D’s foresight.

Question 56

R v Wacker

Answer 56

Topic: ➔ Gross Negligence Manslaughter — Duty of Care in Crime Brief Facts: ➔ D smuggled illegal immigrants; they suffocated. Legal Importance: ➔ Duty of care still owed even when victim is complicit in crime. Golden Nugget: ➔ Duty of care survives criminal partnerships. but not unlawful act because victims consented

Question 57

R v Adomako

Answer 57

Topic: ➔ Gross Negligence Manslaughter — Medical Duty Brief Facts: ➔ Anaesthetist failed to notice disconnected breathing tube. Legal Importance: ➔ Set the modern test for gross negligence manslaughter. Golden Nugget: ➔ Gross breach of duty causing death = criminal.

Question 58

R v Willoughby

Answer 58

Topic: ➔ Gross Negligence Manslaughter — Distinction from Civil Duty Brief Facts: ➔ D involved V in arson which led to V’s death. Legal Importance: ➔ Duty of care in criminal law assessed separately from civil negligence. Golden Nugget: ➔ Criminal duties aren't identical to civil law.

Question 59

R v Miller

Answer 59

Topic: ➔ Gross Negligence — Duty from Creating Danger Brief Facts: ➔ D accidentally set fire but failed to take action. Legal Importance: ➔ Duty arises where D creates a dangerous situation. Golden Nugget: ➔ Cause danger = duty to fix it.

Question 60

R v Singh

Answer 60

Topic: ➔ Gross Negligence Manslaughter — Risk of Death Brief Facts: ➔ D’s negligence in maintaining a gas fire led to death by carbon monoxide poisoning. Legal Importance: ➔ Risk must relate to death, not just injury. Golden Nugget: ➔ Risk must be serious and obvious: risk of death.

Question 61

R v Kuddus

Answer 61

Topic: ➔ Gross Negligence — Risk Awareness Brief Facts: ➔ D served allergen-contaminated food causing V's death. Legal Importance: ➔ Distinction between existence of risk and D’s foresight; serious risk must be objectively obvious. Golden Nugget: ➔ Risk judged objectively, foresight not essential.

Question 62

Gross Negligence Flow

Answer 62

1. Duty of care (wacker, willoughby, other duty of care) 2. breach (miller, evans) 3. causation 4. risk of death (objective r v kuddus, only deaht r v singh) 5. grossness (adomako)

Question 63

Unlawful Act flow

Answer 63

1. unlawful act base (lamb, grey, jennings, franklin, andrews, mitchell, lowe) 2. objective danger (church, newbury, dawson and watson) 3. causation (kennedy, scarlett, grant)

Question 64

duty of care

Answer 64

1. Duty of Care | **Type of Duty** | **Key Case** | **Use it for...** | | --- | --- | --- | | **Contractual Duty** | *R v Pittwood* [1902] | D failed to close gate at railway → train accident | | **Duty from Relationship** | *R v Gibbins & Proctor* [1918] | Parent/guardian neglected child → child died | | **Voluntary Assumption of Care** | *R v Stone & Dobinson* [1977] | D voluntarily cared for anorexic woman → failed to act | | **Duty from Creating a Dangerous Situation** | ✅ *R v Miller* [1983] | D started fire and did nothing → created duty to act | | | ✅ *R v Evans* [2009] | Supplied heroin, saw overdose, didn’t call help | | **Medical Duty (professional)** | *R v Adomako* again | Anaesthetist failed to notice oxygen tube detached | - applies to cases where illegal activity hence duty of care (R v Wacker) *No exclusion of duty just because both parties were engaged in crime.* - different from civil duty of care (r v willoughby)

Question 65

murder overview

Answer 65

1. Unlawful killing – Was the act unlawful? 2. Causation – Factual (but for) and legal (operating and substantial cause; no break). 3. Mens rea (malice aforethought): Intent to kill (oblique or direct) Intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) (R v Vickers). 4. Transferred malice (if relevant) (R v Gnango, R v Mitchell) 5. No lawful defences – e.g., self-defence, loss of control, diminished responsibility.

Question 66

participation

Answer 66

Under Jogee, D will be liable as a secondary party if he intentionally assisted or encouraged the principal’s crime, with foresight alone no longer sufficient to infer intent