Criminal - Murder

Question 1

Actus Reus

Answer 1

D must cause the:

• Unlawful killing (Coke)
• of a human being (not unborn child - (Poulton)
• under the Queen’s peace (Coke; R v Clegg)

Question 2

Causation

Answer 2

Causation is a question for the jury to determine (Rv Clarke and Morabir)

1) Factual causation:
- “but for test” (White)
- acceleration must be significant (more than minimal) (Cheshire)

2) Legal Causation:
- Must be caused by D’s culpable act (Dalloway)
- D’s act doesn’t have to be the only cause (Benge) needs to only contribute significantly to the result (Pagett)
- Malcherek Steel - Novus actus (consider foreseeability) & Op.+sub.

Question 3

R v Dalloway

Answer 3

Must be caused by D’s culpable act

Question 4

R v Benge

Answer 4

D doesn’t have to be the only cause

Question 5

R v Malcherek & Steel

Answer 5

No Legal causation if:

• An event intervenes between D’s conduct and the end result, unless the event was foreseen / foreseeable; or
• an act by another person intervenes between D’s conduct and the end result, unless the injuries inflicted by D were still the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of death.

Question 6

R v Pagett

Answer 6

D’s act need not be the sole cause of the Victim’s death, it need only contribute significantly to the result (there can be multiple defendants)

Question 7

R v Haywood

Answer 7

Take Victim as you find them (if Victim refuses blood transfusion, D can’t assert novus actus)

Question 8

R v Mackie

Answer 8

If death from fright, where there are no physical injuries, use reasonably foreseeable test from Mackie.

Question 9

R v Smith

Answer 9

Novus actus - medical negligence

There will be a legal causation if the original wound is still an operating and substantial cause of death at the time of death.

Question 10

R v Cheshire

Answer 10

Acceleration must be significant

Medical negligence will only break causation if ‘so independant of D’s acts and in itself so potent in causing death, that D’s acts were an insignificant contribution to death’.

Question 11

Mens Rea

Answer 11

“With malice aforethought” - Homicide Act 1957

• intention to kill or cause GBH, i.e. very serious harm (R v Vickers)
• NOT recklessness (Maloney)
• Irrelevant that D killed with benevolent intentions, as in mercy killings (R v Inglis)

If partial defences apply (diminished responsibility or loss of control), offence will be reduced from murder to VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

Question 12

DPP v Smith

Answer 12

Policeman + car

• intention to cause GBH is sufficient for murder Mens Rea.

Question 13

R v Moloney

Answer 13

intention = “aim or purpose”

Recklessness cannot form Mens Rea for Murder.

Question 14

R v Inglis

Answer 14

Benevolent intentions (e.g. mercy killings) are irrelevant for murder mens rea.

Question 15

Partial Defences

Answer 15

Loss of Control (ss.54& and 55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009) and Diminished responsibility (s.2 Homicide Act)

• reduce to voluntary manslaughter.

Question 16

R v Vickers

Answer 16

Murder mens rea - “intention to to kill or cause GBH”

Question 17

R v Woolin

Answer 17

Mens Rea - Oblique intention:

1) death or GBH was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen event) as a result of D’s actions;
2) D appreciated that this was the case.

Question 18

R v Saunders

Answer 18

GBH defined as “serious harm”

Question 19

R v Dear

Answer 19

Legal causation - acts of the victim - suicide

If V dies from original wound, chain is not broken; may be different if suicide is unconnected to the attack and is not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 20

R v Kennedy

Answer 20

Legal causation - acts of the victim

A person who supplies drugs is not liable for death, chain of causation is broken by voluntary and informed decision to act.

Question 21

R v Adebelajo

Answer 21

“Under the King’s peace” refers to jurisdiction (a British subject, or if not, within England and Wales”.

Question 22

Partial defence - loss of control

Answer 22

ss.54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Burden on prosecution to prove that loss of control doesn’t apply.

Three elements to consider (R v Clinton):

1) Did D kill someone as a result of losing control?
2) Did loss of control have qualifying trigger?
3) Might another person have acted in a similar way?

Question 23

Loss of control - Losing control

1) Did D kill someone as a result of losing control?

Answer 23

• Loss of temper not enough (R v Richens - rape)
• Needn’t be complete loss (R v Cocker - wife euthanasia)
• Need not be sudden (R v Ahluwalia - petrol over husband)

Question 24

Loss of control - Qualifying Trigger

2) Did loss of control have a qualifying trigger under s.54(1)(b)?

Answer 24

1) subjective fear of serious violence (R v Martin - shot burglar - when self-defence is unreasonable), or

2a) things said or done that ‘constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character’ (ss55(4)(a)) (must actually be said or done. Can’t be by circumstance (R v Accot))
2b) which ‘caused D to have justifiable sense of being seriously wronged’ (s.55(40(b)). (objective test)

Not defensible if:

• “Considered” revenge (R v Clinton)
• D created qualifying trigger as excuse
• resulted only from sexual infidelity

Question 25

Loss of control - another person

3) Might another person have acted in a similar way?

Answer 25

‘A person of D’s same age and sex, in circumstances of D, but with normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint’ (DPP v Camplin)

Question 26

Diminished Responsility

Answer 26

s.2 Homicide Act (1957)

Burden on D on balance of probabilities (s.2(2)). Four requirements:

1) Was D suffering from ‘abnormality of mental functioning’?
2) Which arose from recognised medical condition
3) Which substantially impaired D’s ability to do certain things
4) And which provides explanation for D’s acts and/or omissions in killing.

Question 27

Diminished responsibility

1) ‘abnormality of mental functioning’

Answer 27

Easier to spot than to define (different from insanity) (R v Byrne)

Question 28

Diminished responsibility

2) Arose from recognised medical condition

Answer 28

Can be physiological or psychological

• PND/PMS (Reynolds)
• Acute depression/battered-woman syndrome (Ahluwalia)
• Alcoholism (Tandy)

Question 29

Defences

Answer 29

Self-defence

Intoxication: voluntary + involuntary

Question 30

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 30

DEFINITION:

• D had no knowledge of consumption of alcohol / drug;
• Administered drug to produce adverse effects (Hardie); or
• Craving for alcohol is too strong to resist (Tandy)

EFFECT:
- If MR absent, involuntary intoxication will only succeed as a defence to Murder, voluntary manslaughter or constructive manslaughter; however, if MR present, D may get a reduced sentence. (Kingston)

Question 31

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 31

DEFINITION:
- Anything not involuntary, including if D knew they were drinking but underestimated the effects (Allen). Voluntary/temporary drunkenness/habitual binge drinking is NOT a defence (Dowds).

EFFECT:
- If MR is absent, Voluntary intoxication will only succeed for crimes of specific intent e.g. Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter (Majewski)

Question 32

R v Kingston

Answer 32

A drunken intent is still an intent