Fatal offences

Question 1

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) (1997)

Answer 1

D injured woman while pregnant causing premature birth which caused baby to die. Feutues injured who then die post-birth can be humans for the act of murder/manslaughter

Question 2

Vickers (1957)

Answer 2

D punched and kicked V multiple times causing death despite intention to cause GBH. GBH suits implied malice aforethought and can be used to prove mens rea for murder

Question 3

s54 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Answer 3

Loss of control: Speical defence which reduces murder to mansalughter

Question 4

s2 of Homicide Act 1957 (amended by s52 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009)

Answer 4

Diminished responsibility: Speical defence which reduces murder to manslaughter

Question 5

Jewell (2014)

Answer 5

D shot V point blank with shotgun. Claimed lost control due to illness, poor sleep and stress. Insufficent evidence to prove loss of control; Anger/Stress not enough for loss of control

Question 6

Ward (2012)

Answer 6

V headbutted D’s brother, causing D to attack V with pickaxe handle. Fear of violence for the qualifiying trigger can be on another person who is identified

Question 7

Dawes (2013)

Answer 7

D found V and his wife together on sofa and started an altercation, in which he stabbed and killed V. Fear of violence cannot be used where D induces the violence

Question 8

Zebedee (2012)

Answer 8

V was D’s 94 year old father with Alzhimer’s. D murdered V due to his incontinence which was causing anger. Things said or done for loss of control is an objective test and the sense of being seriously wronged must be justified

Question 9

Clinton (2012)

Answer 9

V was having an affair and taunted D about his depression and loss of custody of his kids. D killed V. Some matters are excluded from qualifiying triggers but can be considered as a factor if it intergal to the context

Question 10

ReJmanski (2017)

Answer 10

D was in the army and suffered from PTSD. V taunted D about his role in the army causing D to kill V. Circumstances such as age, sex and mental illness are relevant to deciding the level of tolerance and self control expected, but not relevant to whether a normal degree of tolerance and self-restrain was execrised

Question 11

Asmelash (2013)

Answer 11

V taunted D, who was drunk, causing D to stab V to death. Voluntary inotxication cannot be considered for the special defences unless a sober person in the same circumstances as the defendant would have acted in the same way

Question 12

Christian (2018)

Answer 12

D fatally stabbed V’s over an argument over the water tempreature in the shower. If there is an issue with the use of the defence of loss of control, the jury must assume the defence is satisfied unless provdied beyond reasonable doubt. Was not considered at all in this case due to the extreme reaction.

Question 13

Byrne (1960)

Answer 13

D was a sexual psychopath. D strangled and mutilated V. Murder charge quashed and manslaughter substituted. An abnormality of mental functioning must be ‘a state of mind so different from ordinary human beings that a reasonable man would term it abnormal’

Question 14

Golds (2016)

Answer 14

D had an abnormality of mental function arising from a mental condition. D killed V. An impariment must be more than merely trival to be substantial, but not all impariments more than trival will suffice.

Question 15

Dowds (2012)

Answer 15

D and V were drunk. D stabbed V mutilple times, killing her. Voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of finding the defence of diminished responsibility

Question 16

Dietschmann (2003)

Answer 16

D was greving and drunk. D felt V disrespected D’s deceased aunt, causing D to stamp V to death. Held that if a defendant satisfied the jury that their abnormality of mind substantially imparied their mental responsibility despite the intoxication, the defence of diminished responsbility could be used.

Question 17

Kay (2017)

Answer 17

D had a history of substance abuse and was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. D killed V while believing he was satan during a psychotic episode. Held that where a person suffering a mental impariment intoxicates themselves knowing of the consequences, diminished responsbility cannot be used

Question 18

Tandy (1989)

Answer 18

D suffered from ADS and strangled V for telling D they were being sexually abused by their stepdad (D’s husband). Held that ADS did not count as an abnormality as it did not cause brain injury and was not involuntary. Desicion later critisied in Wood (2008).

Question 19

Wood (2008)

Answer 19

V sexually assaulted D while D was asleep and drunk. D woke up and murdered V. Convicted of murder but succesfully appealed. ADS can be an abnoramlity of mental functioning if the craving for alcohol was irrestible and substanially impacted the defendants mental capacity

Question 20

Lamb (1967)

Answer 20

D pointed what he thought was an unloaded gun and shot at V, killing him as it was loaded. V did not fear violence at any point. There was no unlawful act for manslaughter as V did not anticipate violence from D and therefore no assault.

Question 21

Lowe (1973)

Answer 21

D willfully neglected his son, causing death. Appeal quashed convincted of manslaughter. Manslaugher requires an act, omission do not suffice

Question 22

Larkin (1943)

Answer 22

D threatened a man with a razor. V attempted to intervene and fell on the razor and died. The unlawful act must be dangerous and constitute ‘some harm’. The defendant does not have to realise the risk of harm to another person

Question 23

JM and SM (2012)

Answer 23

The D’s provoked doormen of a club inducing a fight which included V. During the fight V collapsed and died due to artery ruption. The actual harm done does not have to foreseen, only that the reasonable person would foresee some harm.

Question 24

Goodfellow (1986)

Answer 24

D set fire to his council house, accidentally causing the death of the V’s. The unlawful act can be aimed at property.

Question 25

Kennedy (2007)

Answer 25

D gave heroin to V, who then injected it in himself and choked to death during his sleep. If V is a fully informed and consenting adult and self-administers a drug, then D cannot be found liable for manslaughter.

Question 26

DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)

Answer 26

D's pushed a paving stone from a bridge onto a railway as a train approached. The stone hit the train and V was killed. D only needs to have mens rea to do the unlawful act and does not have to foresee that it might cause harm

Question 27

Adomako (1994)

Answer 27

D was an anaesthetist who failed to recognise a tube supplying oxygen to V was disconnected for multiple minutes. V had a heart attacked and died. Leading case for gross negligence which established core elements such as a required duty of care, a breach of that duty and for the breach to grossily negligent

Question 28

Broughton (2020)

Answer 28

D supplied drugs to V, his girlfriend, and did not request help despite her condition deterioating. V died. Covincted quashed due to a lack of causation that help would have saved her. Reaffirmed elements set out in Adomako (1994).

Question 29

Singh (1999)

Answer 29

D was a landlord who failed to fix a faulty gas leak, causing V's deaths. Liable due to contractual duty of care between D and V

Question 30

Wacker (2002)

Answer 30

D transported 60 illegal immigrants in a van which needed a small vent open regularly to allow airflow. D failed to open it regularly, causing the death of 58 immigrants. Duty of care dosent not have to be contractual as long as it is assumed by D

Question 31

Evans (2009)