Fatal Offences

Question 1

Murder

Question 2

What is the definition for murder?

Answer 2

Murder is when D kill a person with the intention to kill or cause really serious harm.It’s still a common law offence as there is no statue that defines the conduct needed for murder.

Question 3

What is Lord cokes definition?

Answer 3

The unlawful killing of a human being under the kings peace within any country of the realm with malice aforethought express or implied.

Question 4

What are the AR elements?

Answer 4

Unlawful killing
Human being
Under the king peace
Country of the realm

Question 5

What is the AR of unlawful killing?

Answer 5

For murder the killing must be considered unlawful. there will be times when the V death will be lawful and therefore does not result in criminal liability eg.
Necessity Re A
Self defence Martin

Question 6

What is the cases for unlawful killing?

Answer 6

Necessity: Re A held doctor not responsible because they had lawful killed due to necessity.

The unlawful killing may also be committed by omission:

Gibbins and proctor held father was liable for murder by omission as he had a duty via relationship and the step mum also got got murder by omission as she had a duty that was voluntarily accepted.

Question 7

What is the AR of human being?

Answer 7

This means the V must be alive they must have been born the law states that human life begins at the point a child is able to have an independent existence outside the womb

Question 8

What is the case for human being?

Answer 8

AG Ref No3 1994 held during the trial D found not guilty but has since been decided that if the baby takes an independent existence outside the womb.

It’s not certain whether a person who is brain dead would be considered a creature in being or not.The law has since confirmed that a doctor can switch off a life support machine without being liable for murder which suggests brain death is recognised for a person no longer being a human being.

Malcherek and Steel held both convictions were upheld at the time of switching off the machine the V were already dead as the brain stems had died the doctors could not therefore be the cause of the death.

Lord chief justice stated that a disabled life even a life lived at the extremes of disability is not joy less precious than the life of an able bodied person (Inglis)

Question 9

What is the AR of under the Queens Peace?

Answer 9

This means that killing enemy soldiers during the time of war will not constitute the AR of murder or manslaughter.

Question 10

What is the AR of any country of the realm?

Answer 10

If the D is a British citizen he can be tried in the uk for murder committed in another country.

Question 11

What is causation in fact?

Answer 11

This is known as the but for test would the V have lived but for the act of the accused? The D will not be liable for the death of the V would have died at the same time regardless.

Question 12

What is the case for causation in fact?

Answer 12

White held - white was acquitted of murder as but for his actions the V would have died regardless.White was not the factual cause of the V death but was convicted of murder.

Question 13

What is causation in law?

Answer 13

The conduct of the D may not be the sole cause of the death but be deemed the the legal cause of death the courts have established 3 test

Who is slightly or tribal morally responsible

Was D more than a minimal cause

Did he accelerate the death

Question 14

What is the case for causation in law?

Answer 14

Pagett held - D was convicted as he was morally responsible more than a minimal cause and he accelerated the death of his gf.

Question 15

Novus Actus Interveniens

Answer 15

What is causation is established liability will only be removed by a NAI which will break the chain of causation. The chain of causation can only be removed by:

Act of the third party. This is where the third-party is grossly negligent. If it’s medical professionals, it will only break the chain of causation if they are palpably wrong.

Act of the victim. This is where the victim is grossly negligent, and therefore breaks the chain of causation. The original defendant is no longer liable for murder.

A natural, but unpredictable event.

Question 16

Act of the victim

Answer 16

Longbottom held - Defendant was speeding victim was crossing and was deaf. Without looking. He died. The court held that it cannot break the chain of causation as the victims actions were not grossly negligent.

Roberts held - He touched victims,V jumped out of the car, victim suffered injuries, COURT stated that her act was not grossly negligent as a reasonable man would have acted the same therefore didn’t break the chain of causation

Dear held - Defendant stabbed the victim, victim got stitches. Then reopened the wound. The victim died. The court stated even reopening. The wound was not grossly negligent, therefore cannot break the chain of causation.

Question 17

Act of third-party

Answer 17

Jordan held - Defendants stabbed victim, two people drop the victim while looking for medical help, Doctor gave the medicine to the victim that he was allergic to, The doctor pumped victim with water to get rid of the allergic medicine,Victim got pneumonia and died. The COURT stated medical treatment was palpably wrong so D broke the chain of causation and therefore was liable.

Question 18

Eggshell conditioner

Answer 18

Blaue held - The court held that causation will not be removed as the victims religious beliefs were considered to be an eggshell condition. Therefore defendant must take the victim as he finds him.

Question 19

What is the definition of MR for murder?

Answer 19

The MR for murder is known as the malice aforethought.This can be express malice aforethought which is the intention to kill or implied malice aforethought which is the intention to cause GBH

Question 20

What is direct intent and it’s case?

Answer 20

This is where D has aim and desire to produce a certain result this is a subjective test.

Mohan held - the court stated that direct intent is where the D does everything they can to bring about the desired result

Question 21

What is oblique intent and the case?

Answer 21

This is where D intends one thing but the actual consequence which occurs is something else but it was a virtual certain outcome this is a subjective test.

Woolin held - conviction was reduced from murder to manslaughter the judge said to jury that they should only find intent if they feel sure that death or serious harm was a virtual certainty.

Question 22

Voluntary manslaughter

Question 23

What is the definition of voluntary manslaughter

Answer 23

VM is where D has satisfied the AR and MR of murder however there is a defence as to why they killed which would reduce the charge of murder to VM.

Both of these defences have now been set out in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and are partial defences this means…

Question 24

What is loss of control?

Answer 24

Loss of control is a partial defence to a charge of murder and if successful the D will be found guilty of manslaughter this allows the judge discretion in sentencing S.54 CJA 2009 defines the defence of loss of control as ‘where D is not to be convicted of murder if:

A) D acts or omissions resulted from a loss of control

B) the loss of self control resulted from a qualifying trigger

C) A persons age,sex, with the normal degree of self tolerance and restraint and I. The circumstances of D might have acted in a similar way.

Question 25

What is loss of self control sections?

Answer 25

S.54 (1) (a) - the killing by D must be a result of D loss of self control.

S.54 (2) - the loss of control does not have to be sudden this is a question for the jury.This means that the length of time between what triggers caused the killing and the killing itself does not have to be short there could be a cooling off period.

S.54 (4) - if a person acts out of revenge then the defence will fail as there can be no evidence of a plan or pre meditation .Although the loss of control does not need to be sudden D must have really lost control or snapped just losing temper or acting out of character is not sufficient show in Jewell who said he was ‘sleeping badly tired and unable to think straight’ this was insufficient and he was liable for murder of his colleague’.

Question 26

What are the sections for the Qualifying triggers?

Answer 26

s.55 sets out triggers are allowed to be used for loss of control.

S.55 (3) D feared serious violence it does not need to be reasonable fear as long as it was honestly thought by D ( Lodge held the jury accepted that the D had lost his self control in response to serious violence from V)

S.55 (4)- A thing said or done or both which is extremely grave character and causes D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged.(Zebedee held his conviction was upheld and the defence of loss of control failed as under S.55 (4) the thing done didn’t constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and give the D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

S.55 (5) - the trigger can be a combination of both the above triggers.

S.55 (6) (c) - the trigger cannot be due to sexual infidelity (Dawes) unless it’s combined with other triggers (Clinton)

Question 27

What is the normal people test and what is the section number and case?

Answer 27

Would a person of Ds age,sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of D react in the same way or a similar way?

Although age and sex are outlined as circumstances that are taken into account to decide the appropriate level of self control other circumstances may be considered saucy as D mental health and history of sexual abuse (Hill)
Asmelash states that intoxication will l not be taken into account.

Rejmanski held - the court stated that while a disorder such as PTSD may be relevant there was insufficient evidence that it was the cause in this case so the judge directed the jury to exclude it as a relevant circumstance when applying the ‘normal person test’

Question 28

Diminished responsibility

Question 29

What is the definition and statues of diminished responsibility?

Answer 29

DR is a partial defence to a charge of murder and if successful the D will be found guilty of manslaughter and this allows the judge discretion in sentencing. It’s defined in s.2 Homicide Act 1957 and was amended by a.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 as ‘a person should not be convicted of murder if they were suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which:

A)arises from a recognised medical condition.

B) which substantially impairs their ability to understand the nature of their conduct or from a rational judgement or exercise self control.

C) and provides an explanation for Ds actions.

Question 30

What is the definition, statue,case for abnormality of mental functioning?

Answer 30

S.52 (1)

The accused must suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning which is established through medical evidence. This was established in BYRNE as being ‘a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal’

The jury decide if D was suffering an AMF at the time of the killing.

Byrne held - His conviction for murder was quashed by the court of appeal, and given manslaughter as his ‘state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that a reasonable man would term it abnormal’

Question 31

What is the definition,statue and case for arises from a recognised medical condition?

Answer 31

S.52(1) (a)
The abnormality of mental functioning must arise from a medical condition that is recognised by psychiatrists according to an internally defined list.

It’s up to the defence to prove medical evidence that the D has a recognised medical condition.

The list is wide and includes alcohol dependency syndrome ADS (Tandy)

Batters spouse syndrome (Ahluwalia)

Depression (Seers)

Schizophrenia (Kay)

Autism (Conroy)

Paranoid personality (Squelch)

Challen held - this was overturned by the COA after coercive control become a criminal offences so the depression caused by the husband meant that the defence of DR could be raised.

Question 32

What is the definition and sections of substantial impairment of ability?

Answer 32

S. 52 (1) (b)
The abnormality of mental functioning must have substantial impaired Ds ability to do one or more of the tree gateways (only needs to prove One there can be more tho)

A) understand their conduct s.52 (1A) (a)
This is we’re the D is in an automatic state and does not know what he is doing eg has delusions or severe learning difficulties.

B) Form a rational judgement s.52(1A) (b)
D is not able to form a rational judgement eg those suffering from paranoia (Kay) or batters spouse syndrome (Ahluwalia).

C) Ability to exercise self control s.52 (1A) (c) D cannot himself from killing.

Question 33

What is the definition of s.52 (1) (c) provides an explanation of the Ds conduct?

Answer 33

This is a new element added to the CJA 2009.

D abnormality of mental functioning must be a causal connection to why the D killed.

The abnormality does not need to be the only reason why D killed by must be a significant factor.

Question 34

What is the definition and the case for Diminished Responsibility and intoxication?

Answer 34

1. If D is intoxicated alone it cannot support the defence of DR (Dowds)
2. If D has a pre existing AMF but in addition to being intoxicated at the time of the killing the jury must ignore the fact D is intoxicated and just decide if his AMF was a significant factor toward killing (Kay).

Kay held - The court stated the defence is only possible if the condition was so severe that it would have impaired responsibility without intoxication

3. If defendant suffers from alcohol dependency syndrome, this would be classed as a recognised medical condition and therefore the defendant could use the defence (Tandy)