Homicide and Partial Defences Flashcards
(24 cards)
Drury v HMA
Altered the definition of murder to include wicked recklessness. Wicked recklessness + intention to kill.
Lieser v HMA
Drury did not change law. Intention to kill remains sufficient
What is required for wicked recklessness?
- intention to cause injury
- wicked disregard showing indifference to possible fatal consequences
HMA v Purcell
Reckless driving. Extended wicked recklessness to include oblique intention to kill. Conviction of culpable upheld despite no intention - showed utter disregard of actions and consequences
Petto v HMA
Burning body case. Conviction upheld on appeal as accused could foresee virtually certain circumstances of actions. Fulfilled mens reas of wicked recklessness
Cawthorne v HMA
Firing at closed door. Fulfilleld mens reas of wicked recklessness by showing wicked disregard.
Halliday v HMA
Beating brothers. Jury directed that all evidence is relevant to wicked recklessness - confirmed on appeal. Fulfilled mens rea of wicked recklessness
What is voluntary culpable homocide?
Culpable homicide as a result of a partial defence:
- diminished responsibility
- provocation
Unique to murder. Result in conviction of lesser offence, not full acquittal.
When will provocation not be available?
Where the act is so disproportionate to original act.
Drury v HMA
Provocation applies to instances of assault or infidelity. Proportionality test does not extend to infidelity.
Galbraith v HMA
Removed insanity requirement for diminished responsibility and replaced it with ‘abnormality of mind’. Identified by relevant medical professional.
Cosgrove v HMA
Provocation is only available for assault, cannot use defence due to words.
Gillon v HMA
Killed with spade. Proportionalty test correct for assault. Conviction upheld as accused’s actions were not proportionate
Robertson v HMA
Correct test applied by court of gross disproportion. Killing due to sexual advances was grossly disproportionate.
Thomson v HMA
Business partners. Actions of accused were grossly disproportionate therefore the court rightfully did not leave provocation defence to jury. Only for immediate reactions.
Singleton v HMA
Provocation defence not available as accused continued to act after the victim had posed any direct threat.
HMA v Hill
Provocation defence can be used. Suspicions of cheating, sentence reduced to culpable homicide.
Burns v HMA
Killer blow phenomenon. Any assault leading to death is culpable homicide.
Bird v HMA
Thin skull rule. Even where death is extremely unforseeable, assault and causation leads to culpable homicide conviction.
Transco v HMA
Gas explosion. Lawful act carried out with gross negligence = held liable for deaths. Utter disregard for consequences. Gross negligence is effectively recklessness.
Paton v HMA
Liability for lawful act of homicide when there is not just negligence, but gross negligence.
Mathieson v HMA
Tins of paint elderly home. Wilful fire-raising conviction. If accused’s actions were lawful act causing killings there could be conviction.
MacAngus v HMA
Intervening voluntary act is not necessarily break in causation.
Lord Advocate’s Reference no1 of 1994
Charge was essentially of unlawful act leading to culpable homicide
Court felt that the supply of drugs led to death.
