Fatal Offences

Question 1

What is murder?

Answer 1

Unlawful killing of a reasonable person with malice, as defined by 17th century judge Lord Coke. It is a common law offence not defined in any act of parliament.

Question 2

What is the Actus Reus of murder?

Answer 2

1. V is killed (R v Malcherek confirms brain stem as the current medical term for death).
2. Of a reasonable creature in being (Foetus cannot be murdered; AG’s Reference (1997) states that a child being born alive and then dying is murder).
3. Under the King’s Peace (killing of an enemy in war is not murder).
4. The killing was unlawful (the D does not have a defence).
5. Can be an act or omission (Defendant must be at least 10 years old and sane).Stephen J

Question 3

What are the exceptions to the rule that an omission cannot make someone liable for an offence?

Answer 3

1. Contractual duty (e.g., R v Pittwood).
2. Duty due to a relationship (e.g., R v Gibbins and Proctor).
3. Voluntarily undertaken duty (e.g., R v Stone and Dobinson).
4. Duty through official position (e.g., R v Dytham).
5. Duty arising from a chain of events (e.g., R v Miller).

Question 4

What is Factual Cause in the context of Actus Reus?

Answer 4

D can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened but for the D’s conduct, known as the ‘but for’ test (R v Pagett).

Question 5

What is Legal Cause?

Answer 5

D will be guilty if his conduct was more than a minimal cause, even if there are other acts by other people leading to the consequence (R v Kimsey).

Question 6

What is the Thin-Skull Rule?

Answer 6

The D must take the V as he finds them (R v Blaue).

Question 7

What are Intervening Acts?

Answer 7

There must be a direct link from the D’s conduct to the consequence; an intervening act interrupts the chain of causation.

Question 8

What constitutes an intervening act?

Answer 8

1. An act of a 3rd party (independent and serious).
2. V’s own act (unforeseeable act is an intervening act, R v Williams; foreseeable reaction is not, R v Roberts).
3. A natural but unpredictable event.
4. V’s self-neglect or suicide (R v Wallace).
5. Medical treatment (R v Smith is not an intervening act; R v Jordan is).

Question 9

What is the Mens Rea for murder?

Answer 9

The mens rea for murder is with Malice Aforethought, either express or implied (R v Inglis).

Question 10

What is Direct Intention?

Answer 10

Defined by Mohan as ‘the decision to bring about the prohibited consequence’.

Question 11

What are the two types of intention for murder?

Answer 11

1. Express malice aforethought (intention to kill, Moloney).
2. Implied malice aforethought (intention to do grievous bodily harm, R v Vickers).

Question 12

What is Oblique Intention?

Answer 12

When the D intends one consequence but another (murder) occurs, known as Foresight of consequences (R v Woolin).

Question 13

What is the Transferred Malice Rule?

Answer 13

D could be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime against a different victim (Latimer). The mens rea established on person A is transferred to person B. However, the MR for one offence cannot be transferred to a different offence (Pembilton).

Question 14

What is the Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea Rule?

Answer 14

The actus reus and mens rea elements of a crime must occur at the same time, with an exception for the transaction theory (Thabo Meli).

Question 15

What is the Continuing Act Rule?

Answer 15

Where there is a continuing act of the actus reus and at some point the mens rea is present, then there is a crime (e.g., Fagan).

Question 16

What type of defences are loss of control and diminished responsibility?

Answer 16

They are partial defences available only to murder, reducing the charge to manslaughter.

Question 17

What is the first requirement for loss of control under S54 (1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009?

Answer 17

D must have lost self-control.

Question 18

What must there be for the loss of control defence to be successful?

Answer 18

A qualifying trigger.

Question 19

What is the ‘normal person test’ in the context of loss of control?

Answer 19

A person of the same age and sex would have reacted in the same way.

Question 20

In R v Jewell, what factors were deemed insufficient for a loss of self-control?

Answer 20

Being tired, depressed, and unable to think straight.

Question 21

Is the loss of self-control required to be sudden for the defence to succeed?

Answer 21

No, it does not need to be sudden.

Question 22

Under what condition is the loss of control defence not available?

Answer 22

If D is acting out of revenge.

Question 23

What are the two qualifying triggers for loss of control under S55 (3)?

Answer 23

• A fear of serious violence from the victim or another identified person
• A thing or things done or said which caused D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged.

Question 24

What does S55 (6)(a) state regarding incited violence?

Answer 24

D cannot rely on the first qualifying trigger if they have incited the violence.

Question 25

What must the circumstances be for there to be a qualifying trigger under R v Hatter?

Answer 25

The circumstances must be extremely grave.

Question 26

What does S55 (6) state about self-induced loss of control?

Answer 26

There is no qualifying trigger if the loss of control is self-induced.

Question 27

Is sexual infidelity considered a qualifying trigger?

Answer 27

No, as established in Clinton.

Question 28

What are the factors considered in the normal person test?

Answer 28

* Age * Sex * Circumstances of D.

Question 29

What personal characteristics are relevant in the normal person test according to R v Holley?

Answer 29

Only sex, age, and circumstances relevant to D.

Question 30

What circumstances might be considered in the normal person test?

Answer 30

* Depression * Epilepsy * History of sexual abuse.

Question 31

What circumstance is explicitly excluded from the normal person test?

Answer 31

Voluntary intoxication.

Question 32

What must a person suffering from diminished responsibility demonstrate under S2 (1) Homicide Act?

Answer 32

They must be suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning.

Question 33

What are the three criteria for diminished responsibility under S2 (1) Homicide Act?

Answer 33

* Arose from a medical condition * Substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgement, or exercise self-control * Provides an explanation as to why D killed.

Question 34

What does the term 'abnormality of mental functioning' imply according to Byrne?

Answer 34

D's mental functioning was so different that a reasonable man would declare it abnormal.

Question 35

What must the abnormality provide according to the criteria for diminished responsibility?

Answer 35

An explanation for D's acts.

Question 36

What does S52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 require regarding the medical condition?

Answer 36

The abnormality must arise from a medical condition.

Question 37

What types of conditions fall under the definition of a medical condition?

Answer 37

* Psychological conditions * Physical conditions.

Question 38

What case confirmed that learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders are included in medical conditions?

Answer 38

Jama.

Question 39

What does 'substantially impaired' mean according to R v Lloyd?

Answer 39

It does not mean total but does not mean minimal.

Question 40

What does 'understand the nature of his conduct' cover in diminished responsibility?

Answer 40

Situations where D is in an automatic state and does not know what they are doing.

Question 41

What conditions may prevent someone from forming a rational judgement?

Answer 41

* Schizophrenia * Battered wife syndrome.

Question 42

What case illustrates an inability to exercise self-control due to mental abnormality?

Answer 42

R v Bryne.

Question 43

What is the causal relationship required for diminished responsibility?

Answer 43

The mental abnormality must cause the conduct.

Question 44

What is the key requirement for using the diminished responsibility defence while intoxicated according to Dietschmann?

Answer 44

There must be a recognised medical condition causing the abnormality.

Question 45

Is intoxication by itself considered a recognised medical condition?

Answer 45

No.

Question 46

What is considered a recognised medical condition in R v Wood?

Answer 46

Alcohol Dependency Syndrome.

Question 47

What is involuntary manslaughter due to gross negligence?

Answer 47

It is committed when the D owes the victim a duty of care but breaches that duty in a very negligent way.

Question 48

What type of negligence is required for gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 48

Criminal negligence.

Question 49

What are the four elements of gross negligence manslaughter from R v Adomako?

Answer 49

* Existence of a duty of care by the D to the V * A breach of that duty that causes death * Gross negligence which the jury considers to be so bad as to be criminal * Risk of death from D’s conduct

Question 50

What is an example of a duty of care?

Answer 50

Doctor to patient.

Question 51

What case established the ordinary principles in the civil law of tort related to duty of care?

Answer 51

Caparo v Dickman.

Question 52

In R v Singh, what relationship establishes a duty of care?

Answer 52

Between a landlord and its tenants.

Question 53

In R v Litchfield, what relationship establishes a duty of care?

Answer 53

Between a ship captain and the passengers.

Question 54

What is the 'but for' test in the context of causation?

Answer 54

D can only be guilty if the consequence would not have happened but for the D’s conduct.

Question 55

What does R v Pagett illustrate?

Answer 55

The application of the 'but for' test.

Question 56

What is required for legal causation?

Answer 56

D's conduct must be more than a minimal cause.

Question 57

What does the Thin-Skull Rule state?

Answer 57

The D must take the V as he finds them.

Question 58

Which case provides an example of the Thin-Skull Rule?

Answer 58

R v Blaue.

Question 59

What is an intervening act in the context of causation?

Answer 59

An act that interrupts the chain of causation, meaning D is not guilty.

Question 60

In R v Smith, was there an intervening act?

Answer 60

No, because death was still possible from original conduct.

Question 61

In R v Jordan, was there an intervening act?

Answer 61

Yes, the act caused the death.

Question 62

Do life support machines being switched off break the chain of causation?

Answer 62

No, as established in R v Malcherek.

Question 63

What is required for gross negligence to be considered criminal?

Answer 63

The negligence must be gross.

Question 64

What does R v Bateman explain about gross negligence?

Answer 64

It is a disregard for life and the safety of others.

Question 65

What does involuntary manslaughter due to unlawful act entail?

Answer 65

It is an unlawful killing where the D does not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 66

What is another term for involuntary manslaughter due to unlawful act?

Answer 66

Constructive manslaughter.

Question 67

What must the D do for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 67

The D must do an unlawful act and have the required mens rea.

Question 68

What case illustrates that an omission cannot be an unlawful act?

Answer 68

R v Lamb.

Question 69

What is the objective test for dangerousness in unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 69

All sober and reasonable people must realize some risk of harm.

Question 70

Which case established the objective test for dangerousness?

Answer 70

R v Church.

Question 71

What is the legal definition of an unlawful act?

Answer 71

It must be a criminal act, not a civil act.

Question 72

What does R v Newbury clarify about mens rea?

Answer 72

It must be proved that the D had the necessary mens rea for the unlawful act.

Question 73

What is the significance of R v Dawson in terms of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 73

Fear and apprehension alone are not sufficient for dangerousness.

Question 74

What happens if the unlawful act did not cause the death?

Answer 74

The D is not liable for manslaughter.

Question 75

What is the test for intervening acts regarding a third party?

Answer 75

The act must be independent of the D and sufficiently serious.

Question 76

What is the effect of a natural but unpredictable event on causation?

Answer 76

It can interrupt the chain of causation.

Question 77

What does R v Dalby illustrate regarding drug supply?

Answer 77

If the D supplies drugs but does not inject them, the chain of causation is broken.

Question 78

What does R v Cato illustrate regarding drug supply and injection?

Answer 78

If the D supplies and injects the drugs, the chain of causation is not broken.