murder

Question 1

what is the definition of murder?

Answer 1

the unlawful killing of a human being in the queens peace with malice aforethought

Question 2

what is the actus reus of murder?

Answer 2

the unlawful killing of a human being in the queens peace

Question 3

what is the mens rea of murder?

Answer 3

malice aforethought which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH

Question 4

what does a murder conviction carry?

Answer 4

mandatory life sentence, the judge can not pass a lesser sentence no matter the mitigating factors

Question 5

how can unlawful killing be committed?

Answer 5

by an act or ommission

Question 6

what happens in R V Malcherek and steel?

Answer 6

• malcherek defendant stabbed his wife
• steel defendant was accused of sexual assault and beating a woman over the head with a stone
• in both cases the victims were on life support and the doctors took them off the life support as the brain stems were not functioning
• the test of death is whether the brain stem is functioning

Question 7

which situations are deemed to be lawful murder?

Answer 7

• self defence with reasonable force
• police, military or anything in the course of active duty with reasonable force
• administrating medical treatment
• sport if it is concentual

Question 8

when may a person use reasonable force?

Answer 8

• self defence
• defence of another
• defence of a property
• prevention of a crime
• lawful arrest

Question 9

in assessing the reasonableness of the force used the prosecution should ask these two questions:

Answer 9

• was the force necessary in the circumstances?

- was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

Question 10

what happened in R V clegg?

Answer 10

the defendant fired shots at a car and the final bullet shot as the car was driving away, he killed the back seat passenger and was convicted of murder as the shot was fired after the danger had passed

Question 11

what happens if death had not occured?

Answer 11

• if the victim didnt die but the defendant had the intention to kill then it would be attempted murder
• if there was no intention to kill then charges such as GBH ABH and assault and battery will be brought.

Question 12

what does it mean if it states ‘must be a human being’?

Answer 12

cannot be guilty of murdering an animal

Question 13

when is a foetus a human being?

Answer 13

once it has been expelled from the mother and has an independent existence, it does not have equal rights as a human being

Question 14

when does a person cease to be a human being?

Answer 14

when their brain stem ceases to be active, irrespective of whether they are being kept alive by artificial means

Question 15

a killing is not murder if the person killed is not under the queens peace. what does this mean?

Answer 15

the killing of an enemy combatant by a soldier on active duty during the act of war is not murder however, if the killing occurs outside the act of war murder applies

Question 16

what happens in R V Blackman?

Answer 16

a marine soldier was on active duty but injured a member of the taliban by shooting him. he was convicted of murder as he shot him whilst he was not on active duty

Question 17

what happens in R V Page?

Answer 17

a british soldier killed an Egyptian national in Egypt. was convicted under section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (1861 Act) which stated that where a British national commits murder of a person of any nationality, and commits it anywhere outside of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or not, the offence can be dealt with in any place where that person is apprehended or in custody, as if it had been committed in England.
he was convicted of murder of an Egyptian national by a court-martial.

Question 18

what is meant by causation?

Answer 18

causation refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendants conduct or ommission caused the harm or damage

Question 19

what is causation in criminal liability is divided into?

Answer 19

factual causation and legal causation

Question 20

what is a year and a day rule?

Answer 20

death could not be legally attributed to acts or omissions that occurred more than a year and a day before the death.
it is no longer relevant as long as death has occurred and causation can be proved

Question 21

how is factual causation established?

Answer 21

by applying the but for test

Question 22

what does the but for test ask?

Answer 22

but for the actions of the defendant would the result have occured?

• if yes the result would have occurred in any event the defendant is not liable (no causal link)
• if no the defendant is liable, the action was a factual cause of the result

Question 23

what happens in the case of R V white

Answer 23

defendant poisoned his mother with the intention of killing her, the mother drank it went to sleep and never woke up. medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack not the poison so the defendant was not liable for muder as his act of poisoning was not the cause of death.

Question 24

what happens in R V Pagett?

Answer 24

defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot an armed policeman, police fired back and the girlfriend was killed. she would not have died if it werent for him using her as a shield actus reus proven but no mens rea. there must be a direct link between actions and death

Question 25

what is legal causation?

Answer 25

- legal causation requires that the harm must result from a culpable act, this must also be the cause of death - legal causation also requires that the harm act must be the substantive reason for death

Question 26

what happens in dalloway (1847)

Answer 26

defendant was driving horse and cart down a road without holding the reins, a child ran in front of the cart and was killed. defendant was not liable as he would not have been able to stop the cart in time if he has been holding the reins. key principle is that the culpable act was not holding the reins which was not the cause of death

Question 27

what happened in smith (1959)

Answer 27

victim was stabbed and taken to hospital but had negligent treatment but mistreatment did not supersede original act. defendant was still liable for death

Question 28

what is the thin skull rule?

Answer 28

even if the act would not normally have caused harm, if the act did cause harm to the victim the defendant is still liable take them as they come

Question 29

what happens in R V Blaue (1975)?

Answer 29

young woman was stabbed and needed blood but was a jehovas witness and isnt allowed blood transfusion the victim died so the defendant was still liable

Question 30

what is meant by novus actus interveniens?

Answer 30

chain of causation broken if intervening act supersedes original act

Question 31

what happens in the case Jordan (1956)?

Answer 31

victim was stabbed and was taken to hospital where he was given antibiotics despite showing allergic reaction. was also given excessive amounts of intravenous liquids and died of pneumonia 8 days later. the victim died of the medical treatment not the stab wounds. defendant was not liable for death

Question 32

what happens in the case of roberts (1971)?

Answer 32

girl jumped out of car to avoid sexual advances. intervening act (girl jumping out) ruled a direct consequence of sexual assault and maintained casual link. defendant was still liable for ABH

Question 33

what happens in williams (1992)?

Answer 33

defendant gave lift to victim a hitchhiker and attempted to rob victim who jumped from moving car and died. jumping out a car to escape threat of robbery was in the expected range of responses that a reasonable person expect. casual link maintained. defendant liable

Question 34

what are ommissions?

Answer 34

failures to act. liability for murder not only exists where there has been a causa; act but also where there is a causal ommission

Question 35

where would the legal liability for ommission exist?

Answer 35

where there is an assumed duty of care

Question 36

what situations can a duty of care arise in?

Answer 36

contractual duty duty due to a relationship voluntary duty duty arising from a chain of events

Question 37

what happens in the case of R V Dytham?

Answer 37

a police officer watched an assault but did not intervene. duty of care was from contractual duty

Question 38

what happens in the case of Gibbins V Proctor?

Answer 38

mother and father starved their child, had a duty of care from relationship

Question 39

what happens in the case of stone V dobinson?

Answer 39

was looking after mentally ill sister and gave her no medical care. had a duty of care due to voluntary duty

Question 40

what happens in the case of miller (1983)?

Answer 40

a squatter abandons a cigarette and caused a fire. duty of care from a chain of events

Question 41

what is the mens rea of murder?

Answer 41

-the mens rea of murder is established where the following circumstances exist: malice aforethought foresight of consequences - mens rea can also be established where there is transferred malice

Question 42

what is malice aforethought?

Answer 42

malice meaning intention to do harm must be an aforethought as in a concious decision to do harm prior to the act or ommission

Question 43

what are the three different intentions which exist to make the defendant guilty of murder?

Answer 43

express- (direct) malice aforethought intention to kill implied- (direct) malice aforethought intention to cause GBH oblique- (indirect) didnt mean to kill or harm but fatal consequence was a virtual certainty

Question 44

what happens in the case of vickers (1957)?

Answer 44

defendant broke into the cellar of sweet shop knowing the lady was death but the lade came down and found her. vickers hit her several times with fists and kicked her in the head. key principle is intention to cause GBH - intention to cause murder

Question 45

what happens in the case of cunningham (1982)?

Answer 45

defendant attacked victim with a bar stool repeatedly but claimed that he didnt want to kill. intention to cause GBH rule upheld. the key principle is intention to cause GBH- intention to cause murder

Question 46

what falls under the law of oblique intent?

Answer 46

- main problem with proving intention is in cases where defendants main aim was not the death of the victim but in achieving their other aim, death or serious injruy is occured - defendant does not have the mens rea for murder unless they foresaw that their act would also cause death or serious injury = foresight of consequences otherwise involuntary manslaughter

Question 47

what happens in the case of DPP V Smith?

Answer 47

policeman tried to stop defendant driving off so jumped on the bonnet of the car, defendant drove off and zigzagged to get the policeman off. he argued that he did not intend to harm the victim. defendant was convicted of murder. key principle is that if a reasonable man could see that his actions might lead to GBH then intention to cause harm is present

Question 48

what happens in the case of R V Moloney?

Answer 48

on a drunken dare the defendant was dared to shoot the victim, he was convicted of murder but reduced to involuntary manslaughter on appeal. key principle is the moloney guidelines, foresight is only evidence that there may be intention. foresight is not intention itself. cannot have intention without foresight

Question 49

what happens in the case of R V Woolin?

Answer 49

a baby was thrown against a hard surface in order to get it into its cot. the key principle is that jury can only find intention if death or serious injury was a virtual certainty and defendant appreciated this otherwise must be recklessness and manslaughter

Question 50

what is the key principle of transferred malice?

Answer 50

defendant can be guilty of murder if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different victim.

Question 51

what happens in the case of latimer (1886)?

Answer 51

defendant aimed a blow at a man with a belt because the man attacked him. the belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face= guilty of assault against the woman

Question 52

what happens in the case of mitchell (1983)?

Answer 52

defendant tried to push his way into a queue at the post office. a 72 year old mans told him off. defendant punched the man who fell backwards into a 89 year old woman. she was injured and died later from injuries. defendant convicted of unlawful act manslaughter, despite claiming unlawful act not directed at woman

Question 53

what happens in the case of attoney generals reference (no3 od 1994) (1997)?

Answer 53

the defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend and killed unborn baby but it was ruled that it can only be manslaughter (principle of human being) key principle is that it cannot be transferred malice because transferee had to be in existence

Question 54

what two things must be present together in order to be guilty of murder?

Answer 54

both actus reus and mens rea

Question 55

what happens in the case of R V Thabo meli (1954)?

Answer 55

defendant caused intoxication of the victim before rolling him off a cliff to kill him. the victim died of exposure while lying at the bottom of the cliff. although the doctrine of coincedence requires actus reus and mens rea of a crime to coincide in time, the course of conduct of murder continued up until the victims death. defendant guilty.

Question 56

what happens if both actus reus and mens rea are not present? then a lesser charge such as attempted murder,

Answer 56

then a lesser charge such as attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, or involuntary manslaughter would be substituted

Question 57

what is voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 57

certain circumstances would allow a partial acquittal even if actus reus and mens rea present