Murder Flashcards
Lord Coke’s definition of murder
“When a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rarum natura under the king’s peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law (So as the part wounded, or hurt, etc die of the wound or hurt, etc within a year and a day after the same)”
Lord cokes definition (summarised into key parts)
1) Unlawful Killing
2) Off a Human being
3) Under the King’s peace
4) Causation
5) Malice aforethought
Unlawful killing
R V Malcharek, R V Steele
Doctors turning off life support when the V was already brain dead was not an unlawful killing
Lord Lane: “It is perhaps somewhat bizarre to suggest… that where a doctor tries his conscientious best to save the life of a patient…. But fails in his attempt and therefore discontinues treatment, he can be said to have caused the death of the patient”
Unlawful killing
Case law of Re A
Operating on conjoined twins to save one although it would end the life of the other was not, on these particular facts, unlawful
Unlawful killing (Omission or Positive Act)
R V Gibbins & Proctor
D’s starved a seven year old child to death
Their omission to feed the child when they had a duty to act as parents was an unlawful killing
Human being
R V Poulton
A baby must be born alive and outside the mother to be a “human being” for the purposes of murder, which was not the case here, so D had not committed murder
Main principle here: “Not a Foetus”
Kings peace
R v Page
D, a solider, killed an Egyptian citizen in a village
Held: although there was a war on, the killing was not on the battlefield so was under the kings peace.
Kings peace
R V Blackman
Killing an enemy combatant after they were seriously injured and no longer a threat was a killing under the King’s peace
Causation
Factual causation
R V White
D poisoned his mother’s lemonade with cyanide. She died of an unrelated heart attack.
Held: D was not guilty of murder.
(MAIN PART): It could not be said “that but for the D’s act or omission, V would not have died” so there was no factual causation
Causation
Legal causation
R V Smith
D stabbed V.
On the way to the medical station he was dropped twice.
There was a delay.
Doctors gave the wrong treatment.
Held: The court held that
(MAIN PART): As D stabbing the V was a “more than minimal” cause of the death, legal causation was present
This was because despite the “Thoroughly bad” medical treatment, the stab wound was an “Operating and Substantial cause” of the V’s death
Summarised Actus Reus of Murder
Unlawful killing
Positive act or omission
Human being
Not a foetus
Kings peace
Not during battle
Causation
FC: “But for D’s acts or omission,” V would not have died
LC: D’s acts or omission was a “more than minimal cause of V’s death”
Men’s Rea of murder
S1 Homicide Act 1957
Malice Aforethought
What are the two types of Malice Aforethought?
Express Malice: Intention to kill
Implied malice: Intention to cause really serious harm
S1 Homicide Act 1957
Malice Aforethought
Implied Malice
R V Vickers
D broke into the cellar of V’s shop in order to steal.
When V appeared on the stairs, D attacked her, hitting her 10-15 times and kicking her in the face.
V died of the resulting shock
The judge directed the jury that implied malice could be found if D intended to cause her GBH. When D appealed, this statement of the law was upheld by the Court Of Appeal
S1 Homicide Act 1957
Malice Aforethought
Implied Malice
R V Cunningham
D attacked V in a pub, hitting him with a chair repeatedly.
He was convicted of murder and appealed on the grounds he did not intend to kill the V.
The matter was referred as a point of law of general public importance to the House Of Lords, which upheld the decision in R V Vickers
Men’s Rea of murder
S1 Homicide Act 1957
Malice Aforethought
Expressed Malice (Key Points)
D ‘desires’ to kill (R V Mohan)
D’s conduct is ‘virtually certain’ to result in V’s death and D realises this (R V Woollin)
