Fatal Offences

Question 1

What is the legal definition of murder?

Answer 1

Murder is defined as the “unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought” (Lord Coke)

Question 2

What is the maximum sentence for murder?

Answer 2

Mandatory Life

Question 3

What are the steps for murder?

Answer 3

1 - the defendants actions must have resulted in the death of a reasonable creature under the kings peace

2 - the defendant must be both the legal and factual cause of the death

3 - the defendant must have the either direct or oblique intent to bring about the death

Question 4

What cases are relevant for step 1 of murder?

Answer 4

A-G Ref 1997 - a foetus isn’t a reasonable creature
‘Kings Peace’ - can lawfully kill in wartime
Stephen J - omission cannot constitute for AR
Miller - omission can count for AR when a duty to act is present

Question 5

What cases are relevant for step 2 of murder?

Answer 5

Pagett - factual causation (but for test)
Kimsey - legal causation (substantial cause)
Cheshire - if a doctors actions = standard practise, then they DON’T break the chain of causation
Jordan - if a doctors actions = palpably wrong, then they DO break the chain of causation
Malcherek - switching off life support prior to the D’s actions doesn’t break the chain of causation
Blaue - unforeseeable weakness doesn’t break the chain of causation

Question 6

What cases are relevant for step 3 or murder?

Answer 6

Mohan - direct intent
Woollin - oblique intent
Vickers - intention for serious bodily harm counts
Latimer - transferred malice is applicable to murder
Thabo Mali - AR/MR can coincide through a series of connected events

Question 7

What is the legal definition of loss of control?

Answer 7

when the defendant brings about death due to a loss of control caused by a ‘qualifying trigger’ under s54 CJA 2009

Question 8

What are the steps for loss of control?

Answer 8

1 - has there been a loss of control? (s54) the defendant must also have ‘snapped’ (Jewell)

2 - the loss of control must have been caused by a qualifying trigger (s55) and not an excluded matter. The defendant must fear serious violence or must have been seriously wronged by a statement or action which is ‘extremely grave’

3 - Reasonable reaction test, a person who is the same age and sex as the defendant must react in the same manner for it to be a reasonable reaction.

Question 9

What are the relevant cases for step 1 of loss of control?

Answer 9

R v Jewel - inability to think straight does not count, the defendant must have ‘snapped’
Cocker - being worn down does not count as a loss
Ahluwalia - delay in reaction to the trigger makes the defence less valid

Question 10

What are the relevant cases for step 2 of loss of control?

Answer 10

Ward - violence need not be directed at the defendant
Doughty - crying children are not a qualifying trigger
Dawes - a self induced trigger is not a valid trigger
Lodge - if the victim has a weapon it makes their threat more serious
s55(6) - sexual infidelity and revenge are not triggers
Clinton - if an excluded matter makes the qualifying trigger more grave then it is relevant

Question 11

What are the relevant cases for step 3 of loss of control?

Answer 11

s54(3) - characteristics which relate to the defendants ability to exercise self control are disregarded
Gregson - being taunted about your inability to exercise self control can be taken into account.
Clinton - sexual infidelity and revenge can be taken into account in this stage
Asmelash - voluntary intoxication cannot be taken into account, but involuntary intoxication can be

Question 12

What is the legal definition of diminished responsibility?

Answer 12

When a person kills while suffering an ‘abnormality of mental functioning.’ Defined by Byrne as “a state of the mind so different that a reasonable man would term it abnormal”

Question 13

What are the steps for diminished responsibility?

Answer 13

1 - does the defendant have an abnormality of mental functioning? (Byrne)

2 - does the abnormality of the mind arise from a recognised medical condition? (s52A)

3 - does the abnormality of the mind substantially impair the defendants ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form rational judgement or exercise self control?

4 - is there a causal link between the defendants abnormality of mental functioning and their conduct

Question 14

What are the maybe cases for step 1 of diminished responsibility?

Answer 14

Byrne - abnormality of mental functioning = “a state of the mind so different that a reasonable man would term it abnormal”

Question 15

What are the maybe cases for step 2 of diminished responsibility?

Answer 15

Martin - all psychological conditions count as an RMC
Ahluwalia - battered wives syndrome is an RMC
Dowds - being intoxicated is not an RMC
Reynolds - post natal depression is an RMC
Stewart - Alcohol dependency is an RMC
Dietshmann - a combination of intoxication and an RMC means that the defendant must prove the same outcome would have occurred regardless of the intoxication

Question 16

What are the maybe cases for step 3 of diminished responsibility?

Answer 16

Lloyd - the RMC does not need to completely impair the defendant, it must only impair them more than ‘minimally’

Question 17

What are the maybe cases for step 4 of diminished responsibility?

Answer 17

there are none!

Question 18

What is the legal definition for gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 18

when the defendant has grossly caused the death of the victim, through a breach in the duty of care

Question 19

What are the steps for gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 19

1 - the defendant must owe the victim a duty of care (Wacker)

2 - the defendant must have breached their duty of care for the victim through acting differently to how the reasonable person would do in that situation (Blyth)

3 - the breach must be ‘gross’ (Bateman) and involved a ‘risk of death’ (Adomako)

4 - there must be a causal link between the gross act and the death of the victim (causation / remoteness)

Question 20

What are the relevant cases for step 1 of gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 20

Lord Atkin - a duty of care is owed to anyone who ‘ought to be in his contemplation’
Stone & Dobinson - duty of care can be voluntarily assumed through things like family relationships
Litchfield - contract creates a duty (teachers)
Wacker - there is a duty of care for crime partners
Evans - a duty of care is created for the victim if you put them in a dangerous situation

Question 21

What are the relevant cases for step 2 of gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 21

Blythe - trainee doctors are held to the same standard as experienced doctors
Nettleship - learner drivers are held to the standard of experienced drivers
Mullin - age can be taken into account

Question 22

What are the relevant cases for step 3 of gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 22

There are none!

Question 23

What are the relevant cases for step 4 of gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 23

Pagett - factual causation (but for test)
Cato - legal causation (substantial cause)
Roberts - If the death is foreseeable then the gross act is the cause of death (foreseeability)

Question 24

What is the legal definition for unlawful act manslaughter/constructive manslaughter ?

Answer 24

when the defendant had committed an initial unlawful act which has resulted in the death of the victim

Question 25

What are the steps for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 25

1 - the defendant must have committed an unlawful act which must be a crime (Lamb)

2 - the unlawful act must be dangerous (Church) a reasonable person would see the risk of some harm resulting from the unlawful act (Church)

3 - the unlawful act must be the substantial cause of death. Thus the defendant must be both the factual and legal cause of the death.

4 - the defendant must have the mens rea for the initial unlawful act (Newbury and Jones)

Question 26

What are the relevant cases for step 1 of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 26

Lamb - if the victim did not believe there was a crime before their death then there is no initial unlawful act
Khan - an omission cannot form the actus reus of the initial unlawful act

Question 27

What are the relevant cases for step 2 of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 27

Larkin - the initial unlawful act does not need to be aimed/intended for the victim
Goodfellow - the initial unlawful act can be on property
Dawson - the initial unlawful act is not dangerous if it results in an unforeseeable consequence (heart attack)
Watson - the age and frailty of the victim are taken into account when considering what is foreseeable

Question 28

What are the relevant cases for step 3 of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 28

Pagett - factual causation (but for test)
Cheshire - Legal causation (substantial cause)
Kennedy - if the victim self induces their death then the chain of causation is broken (drug dealers and buyers)
A-G ref 1980 - defendant can cause death through a series of events (coincidence rule)
Corion - can indirectly cause the death (scaring a crowd and someone gets trampled)

Question 29

What are the relevant cases for step 4 of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 29

Newbury and Jones - the defendant only needs the required mens rea for the initial unlawful act
case specific - any cases relevant to the specific initial unlawful act can be applied