Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

English Criminal Law > Homicide > Flashcards

Homicide Flashcards

1
Q

2 main offences

A

murder and manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

manslaughter - 2 types

A

voluntary and involuntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what is the difference between murder and manslaughter?

A

murder must be sentenced to life only discretion is the minimum term, manslaughter there are a full range of sentencing options available.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what can a murder charge be changed to?

A

voluntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

murder

A

unlawful killing of a person/human being under the King’s peace with the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

king’s peace

A

not in war

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

MURDER (RESULT CRIME)

A

person must die before we can have a charge of murder - any conduct that causes the result will satisfy the conduct element.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

unlawful killing

A

killing that isn’t permitted in law, without lawful defence and satisfying AR and MR elements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

human being

A

a living human person, can’t be an animal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

under the King’s Peace

A

British citizen anywhere in the world, anyone on British ships and aircraft.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what are the terms for lawful killing?

A

war, self-defence, medical treatment, best interests, necessity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

best interest (lawful killing) - Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

A

V suffered punctured lungs, irreversible brain damage, since 1969 that way, no prospect to recover, held it wasn’t in his interest to carry on the ventilator, wasn’t living, causing death by withdrawing treatment wouldn’t be unlawful killing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

necessity (lawful killing) - Re A (children)

A

conjoined twins, N dependent on J, doctors wanted to separate by N would definitely die, parents didn’t want but ruled in favour of doctors. N’s death was inevitable, doctrine of necessity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

euthanasia and lawful killing

A

it is not lawful, R v DPP - unlawful as it was consider suicide, Re B - wanted her ventilator off, was competent, doctor refused, since she had capacity she could have it turned off.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

when does life begin?

A

when a baby has wholly emerged from its mother and is breathing/surviving independent of the mother.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

when does life end?

A

r v malcherek, r v steel - brain stem death, both D’s seriously assaulted their V’s, caused them to become brain dead, once doctors recognised they withdrew treatment.
- held not an intervening act, person will be taken to have died if bran dead.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

AR of murder - result

A

requirement is the death of V - crime isn’t complete until death happens.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

accelerating death

A

counts as causing it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

MR of Murder

A

intention to kill or cause GBH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

r v Moloney

A

D shot and killed father, claimed they were drinking and having fun, convicted of murder, whether it’s premeditated or in the moment if the intention is there it is murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

intention can be….

A

direct or indirect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

R v Vickers

A

no need to realise actions might cause death - D was committing a burglary and assaulted the old lady who died, upheld conviction of murder as intended to cause serious harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

r v Cunningham

A

no need to realise actions might cause death - struck person in the head with a chair multiple times, said he didn’t mean to do so, didn’t act intending to cause serious harm but still caused death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

general defences

A

complete defence - D successfully pleads one of these they will be acquitted e.g., self-defence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

partial defences

A

reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter, DR, loss of control, suicide pact.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

doctrine of double effect

A

where easing pain may incidentally shorten life in medical contexts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

r v adams

A

D reduced pain and suffering of his patients - used painkillers on his patients that caused their death, since the reduction of suffering is good, reduces the awfulness that the patients died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

voluntary manslaughter

A

conduct that would have been murder but for the operation of a partial defence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

diminished responsibility (voluntary manslaughter) - Homicide Act 1957 s.2

A

4 part test: 1. suffering from abnormality of mental functioning, 2. stemming from a recognised medical condition, 3. resulting in substantial impairment to understanding, rational judgement, or self control, that 4. explains the killings.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

r v bryne

A

abnormality of mental functioning - reasonable man would term it abnormal, psychopath and insane, quashed conviction, jury decision should be based on fact.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

C&JA

A

changed from abnormality of mind to mental functioning, that the reasonable person would think

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

what should they produce for abnormality of mental functioning?

A

medical evidence to plead their case and satisfy the defence.

33
Q

recognised medical condition

A

requires a medically recognised mental or physical illness or disorder, something known to medicine and capable of being diagnosed, limits situations of partial defence.

34
Q

r v dowds

A

D was alcoholic, during binge stabbed partner 60 times and attempted to plead dr under intoxication, unsuccessful - medically recognised doesn’t prevent the court from overruling

35
Q

substantially impaired

A

D ability - understand their own conduct, form rational judgements, exercise self-control.

36
Q

r v ram churn

A

substantial impairment - D strangled cousin after discovering affair with wife, killed, pleaded dr, impairment doesn’t need to be so serious.

37
Q

r v golds

A

substantial impairment - something that was present rather than illusionary and weight of importance, significance of D impairment.

38
Q

homicide act s2(1B)

A

abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for D’s conduct if it causes or is a significant contributory factor in causing.

39
Q

r v Joyce and kay

A

schizophrenic, killed under the influence, more drunkeness that caused the killing than schizophrenia, unless the condition causes the voluntary intoxication not mitigating factor.

40
Q

suicide pact

A

D and V agree to die at the same time - voluntary manslaughter

41
Q

loss of control - coroners and justice act 2009 s 54

A

3 part test - 1. loss of self-control, 2. due to a qualifying trigger, 3. someone of same age and sex would have killed in the same circumstances (objective).

42
Q

qualifying trigger (2 part test)

A
  1. fear of serious violence from V against D or an identified other person, 2. things done/said by anyone that have produced extremely grave circumstances and mean that D’s justifiability feels seriously wronged.
43
Q

r v jewell

A

loss of self-control, loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or a loss of normal powers of reasoning. killing colleague, convicted of murder, if pleading loss of control it is not denial but an explanation of why.

44
Q

r v islam

A

nothing in the statute required the D to act in a frenzied manner - loss of control

45
Q

r v Dawson

A

loss of control - frenzy can be done in a state of revenge or trying to impress others.

46
Q

qualifying trigger - s.55

A

D must have a fear of serious violence, attributable to a thing or things said or done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

47
Q

fear of serious violence (qt, s.55)

A

assessed subjectively (must hold the fear and doesn’t matter if circumstances are real), objective is that circumstances must be of grave character and justifiable sense of being wronged.

48
Q

things said or done (qtr)

A

partly subjective (sense of being wronged), mostly objective (justifiable, grave)

49
Q

Dawes & Others (qtr)

A

v reacted negatively to D burgling them, D hurt them, D doesn’t have a qualifying trigger if they cause the circumstances.

50
Q

sexual infidelity is to be disregarded (s 55(6)(c))

A

Clinton case - D killed wife after she told him about affair, tried to commit suicide several times, stopped sexual infidelity from being used, if the only defence then not allowed but if it forms several circumstances then take all into consideration.

51
Q

other person would have killed?

A

same age and sex as D, in the same circumstances as D, with normal tolerance and self-restraint.

52
Q

s 54(3) someone else would have killed

A

all circumstances except those whose only relevance to D’s conduct is that they bear on D’s general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint.

53
Q

r v rejmanski

A

killing with PTSD, rejected as only relevant when looking at the seriousness of the trigger, may be more appropriate to plead dr.

54
Q

r v asmelash

A

killing while voluntarily intoxicated, drunkenness to be ignored, whether a reasonable person who was sober would qualify for the trigger, not a normal person with normal restraint.

55
Q

involuntary manslaughter

A

D killing V whilst committing another crime, casual link between D act and V death, liability is on top of D base offence, factual and legal causation required, need AR and MR of the base offence

56
Q

base offence

A

must be properly unlawful, must have a subjective MR element, must be a positive act.

57
Q

Andrews v DPP

A

took a van over to a bus that broke down, overtook a car and ran over pedestrian, charged with dangerous driving, lawful act which causes the death must be inherently criminal.

58
Q

R v Lamb

A

all the elements of base offence must be proven - didn’t know how the gun worked, 2nd time shooting it killed his friend, conviction of unlawful act quashed as they couldn’t prove the base offence of assault and battery

59
Q

R v Slingsby

A

sex with V, digital penetration, wearing ring caused internal cuts, became infected and died, didn’t intend to do harm but wouldn’t have happened if took the ring off, able to plead case of consent, no base offence.

60
Q

dangerous to V

A

whether a sober and reasonable person in the circumstances would have recognised its danger at the time, objective test, seen at the time when the D acted.

61
Q

R v Church

A

injured woman having sex with, threw her in river, not dead died because of his actions, convicted of unlawful act, so long as reasonable person could force risk of harm.

62
Q

R v Dawson

A

sober and reasonable person is taken to know what D knew - unlawful act, tried to rob petrol station using fake gun, V got a heart attack, all circumstances known, whether D knew of the circumstances, since D didn’t know shouldn’t have taken it into account.

63
Q

causes death of V - UNLAWFUL ACT

A

dangerous crime must cause the death, standard causation rules apply, factual and legal causation

64
Q

R v Kennedy (No 2) - causes death of v

A

convicted of unlawful act but conviction quashed as V voluntarily took it, satisfied factual but not legal

65
Q

AG’s Reference (No 3) - no MR requirements with respect causing death

A

D stabbed pregnant girlfriend with intent to kill, entered premature labour and kid died a little later, lordships decided he should have been convicted with unlawful act, met all factors

66
Q

Gross negligence

A

very serious breach of duty that results in death of the V

67
Q

R v Adomako - gross negligence

A

anaesthetist didn’t notice detached oxygen tube, V died, care described as abysmal, should have recognised, set out test for gross negligence

68
Q

gross negligence - 5 part test

A
  1. duty of care to V, 2. duty was breached, 3. breach involved serious and obvious risk of death, 4. breach actually caused V’s death, 5. breach was criminally serious (jury decides this)
69
Q

r v wacker

A

duty of care (gnm) - migrants suffocated in D’s truck, states doing the blaming here not the individuals so can recognise duty of care

70
Q

gross negligence and omissions

A

can commit gross negligence via omissions - duty of care broader than duty to act

71
Q

r v evans - gnm

A

because she chose to stay this created a dangerous situation for the V and was under a duty of care

72
Q

r v Broughton - gnm

A

D videoed V overdosing, 90% chance would have lived if treated, breach of duty was not operative cause of death, not beyond a reasonable doubt

73
Q

breach of duty - assessed objectively

A

jury asks if D’s conduct meets the standard of a reasonable person holding that duty - intent and mindset is not relevant

74
Q

breach of duty - reasonable foresight that breach posed a serious and obvious risk of death

A

must factually exist - r v kuddus, chef in takeaway wasn’t aware of allergy as person taking order forgot to say, V died, only had minor reactions before, needed to decide if reasonable person would have known, quashed conviction, would’ve owed a duty if knew

75
Q

breach of duty - be reasonably foreseeable R v Rose

A

optometrist didn’t spot fluid in the brain, would’ve been spotted by reasonable person, died, convicted of gnm, quashed, wasn’t foreseeable as the test was done incorrectly

76
Q

breach is criminally serious

A

no definition of how serious it needs to be, jury decides the question here, falls so far below standard of reasonable person

77
Q

breach is criminally serious - courts should use other terms to explain what ‘gross’ means

A

r v sellu - surgeon negligently failed to operate on V, left to jury, held it was insufficient as the judge cannot simply say it must be gross

78
Q

breach is criminally serious - circularity of the test

A

r v misra - conduct as truly exceptionally bad, 2 doctors failed to diagnose and the V died, appeal rejected as to certainty of the offence.

79
Q

reckless manslaughter

A

same as murder except MR involves recklessness instead of intent.

English Criminal Law (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions