Fatal Offences

Question 1

What is the definition of murder?

Answer 1

The unlawful killing of a human being under the kings peace with malice aforethought express or implied
lord coke

Question 2

What are the 4 elements that must be proven for the actus reus of murder

Answer 2

The defendant was killed
The killing was unlawful
The killing was of a human being
The killing took place under the kings peace

Question 3

The defendant killed

Answer 3

The killing must be a voluntary positive act or an omission

Question 4

The killing was unlawful

Answer 4

There is no defence to apply

Question 5

The killing was of a human being

Answer 5

The person must have an existence independent of the mother for it to be considered a human being
Attorney general No3 1994

Question 6

The killing must be in the kings peace

Answer 6

Killing must not be of an enemy in the course of war
R v blackman

Question 7

factual causation

Answer 7

the defendant can only be guilty of murder if the consequences would not have happened but for the defendant’s actions
R v white

Question 8

legal causation

Answer 8

1) the defendant’s actions must be more than a slight or trifling link to the death - de minimus -r v Kimsey
2) it must be a substantial cause of the death - R v Smith

Question 9

Defences to legal causation

Answer 9

novus actus interveniens:
medical treatment
victims own actions

Question 10

Novus actus interveniens

Answer 10

if D can show that a completely new circumstance is the cause, his liability will be waivered
if it breaks the chain of causation

Question 11

medical intervention

Answer 11

it will only break the chain of causation if it is so palpably wrong and is the main cause,
R v Jordan
R v chesire

Question 12

victims own actions

Answer 12

if their actions are reasonably foreseeable it will not be novus actus interveniens, R v Roberts

Question 13

what happens if a victim fail to seek medical treatment

Answer 13

R v Dear
it will not break the chain of causation and therefore will not be novus actus interveniens

Question 14

life support

Answer 14

R v Malcherek
switching off the life support machine is not novus actus interveniens

Question 15

thin skull rule

Answer 15

R v Blaue
must take the victim as you find them

Question 16

Mens rea of murder

Answer 16

Malice aforethought express or implied meaning a defendant can be guilty of murder even though they didnt intend to kill
R v Vickers

Question 17

Direct intent

Answer 17

Where the D intends the specific consequences to occur
R v Mohan

Question 18

Indirect intent

Answer 18

When the aim was not the prohibited consequence but in achieving their aim they foresaw they would cause the consequences
Woollin (1998)

Question 19

What are the 2 tests applied for indirect intent?

Answer 19

Was death a virtually certain consequence?
Did D appreciate that was the case?

Question 20

Transferred malice

Answer 20

When mens rea is transferred from the intended victim to the unintended victim if the crime was a similar nature
R v Mitchell

Question 21

What are the types of voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 21

Diminished responsibility
Loss of control

Question 22

What is voluntary manslaughter

Answer 22

A partial defence to murder where they must have the actus reus, mens rea and the causal link but with mitigating circumstances

Question 23

What are the requirements for diminished responsibility?

Answer 23

S52 of the coroners and justice act 2009:
1) an abnormality of mental function
2) which arose from a medical condition
3) and substantially impaired the D’s ability to do one of 3 things
4) the abnormality must provide an explanation for defendants acts

Question 24

Abnormality of mental function

Answer 24

a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
R v Byrne

Question 25

From a recognised medical condition

Answer 25

E.g - depression R v Gittens

Question 26

What is the situation with RMC and intoxication

Answer 26

Intoxication alone cannot support a defence of DR but where a D has a pre-existing mental disorder intoxication will not prevent him using the defence - Dietschmann Alcohol dependence syndrome can be a RMC - Woods

Question 27

Substantially impairs Ds ability to do one of three things

Answer 27

Understand the nature of their conduct Form a rational judgement Exercise self control

Question 28

Provide an explanation for the D’s acts

Answer 28

There must be a significant causal link between the mental functioning and the conduct that resulted in death

Question 29

What is the 3 stage test for loss of control

Answer 29

1) the defendant must lose control 2) because of a qualifying trigger 3) a person of their sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance, might have reacted in the same way

Question 30

The defendant must lose control

Answer 30

D must lose control, R v jewell S54(2) loss of control doesn’t need to be sudden

Question 31

What are the measures for loss of control

Answer 31

When D lost their ability to maintain their action in accordance with judgement D lost normal powers of reasoning D’s behaviour was out of character

Question 32

What is a qualifying trigger

Answer 32

S55 CJA The fear trigger - S55(3) The things said or done trigger - S55(4)

Question 33

The fear trigger

Answer 33

D’s fear of serious violence from the victim R v ward 2012

Question 34

The things said or done trigger( anger trigger)

Answer 34

Something said or done by the victim that: 1) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character and 2) caused D to have a justified sense of being wronged R v Bower (2013)

Question 35

A person of their sex and age may have reacted the same way

Answer 35

S54(1)(c) R v Camplin (1978)

Question 36

Loss of control in relation to infidelity

Answer 36

Infidelity will not be sufficient for loss of control R v Clinton

Question 37

Loss of control in relation to revenge

Answer 37

Those acting in a considered desire for revenge cannot rely on the partial defence S54(4)

Question 38

what is involuntary manslaughter

Answer 38

when an individual has committed an unlawful killing but without an intention to cause grievous bodily harm or kill the victim

Question 39

what are the 2 type of involuntary manslaughter

Answer 39

unlawful act gross negligence

Question 40

what is the 4 part test of unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 40

Positive unlawful act Objectively dangerous act Causes death Mens rea for the unlawful act

Question 41

positive unlawful act

Answer 41

the unlawful act must be an act and not an omission (R v Lowe) The unlawful act must be a criminal act and not a civil one (R v Franklin) The unlawful act does not need to be directed at the victim (R v Mitchell) All of the elements of the unlawful act must be present in order for a defendant to be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter (R v Lamb)

Question 42

objectively dangerous act

Answer 42

the act must be dangerous 'Would the sober and reasonable person recognise that it would subject the victim to at least some harm, albeit not serious harm’ If so then the act is dangerous R v Church

Question 43

causes death

Answer 43

Factual causation (but for test from R v White) Legal causation – substantial and operating cause of death (R v Smith) if there are intervening acts these must be so independent of the actions of the defendant - medical intervention, victims own act

Question 44

mens rea for unlawful act

Answer 44

D needs to have the mens rea for the unlawful act R v Newbury and Jones

Question 45

what is the 6 part test for gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 45

established in R v Adomako with test reaffirmed in R v Broughton: 1)Did the D owe the V a duty of care? 2)Breach of duty of care 3)At the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death 4)It was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach of the duty that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death. 5)Did the breach cause the death of the victim? 6)Were D's actions so grossly negligent that they could be classed as criminal?

Question 46

did D owe a duty of care

Answer 46

R v Singh - duty of landlord towards tenants R v Adamako - duty owed by doctor Nettleship v Weston - driver to passenger

Question 47

breach of duty of care

Answer 47

would the reasonable man with the same skills have done the same in the same situation – R v Holloway An unqualified person will not be judged at a lower standard than a qualified person

Question 48

Were D's actions so grossly negligent that they could be classed as criminal?

Answer 48

R v Bateman “such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to crime against the state deserving of punishment.” R v Misra and Srivastava – the breach of duty must be so bad that it risked death, not just the health and safety of the victim.