murder Flashcards

1
Q

never been defined in legislation - common law offence which was defined by Sir Edward Coke as:

A

the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the kids peace with malice aforethought, express or implied

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

unlawful killing

A

this relates to the presence of a defence, as it is possible for killing to be lawful if it is legally justified

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

legally justified when:

A

> self defence (R vClegg)
war
death penalty

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

murder can be committed by an omission :

A

intentionally accelerating someones death is still murder, even if someone is going to die anyway

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

case examples:

A

> R v Gibbons and Proctor- failure to feed a 7yr old girl
R v Stone and Dobinson - neglected aunt they offered to take care of
R v Miller - set a fire and left it

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

reasonable person in being

A

> AGs ref - cannot be foetus in utero
Malcherek v Steele - cannot be brain dead

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

AGs reference (no.3)

A

if foetus is ‘‘fully expelled’’ from the mom it can be a reasonable person in being but injuries in ‘‘utero’’ cannot be murder.

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

Brain dead

A

doctors often to turn off life support of those who are brain dead and are protected against being held criminally liable
Malcharek v Steele - not held to be a reasonable person in being.

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

under the Kings peace

A

the killing of an enemy in the course of war is not murder. However, killing of a prisoner of war would be sufficient for acts reus of murder.

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

factual causation

A

'’but for’’ test
Pagett

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

legal causation

A

chain of causation
more than minimal cause - R v Kimsey

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

intervening act (nous actus interveniens)

A

Smith - 2 soldiers fought, one was stabbed. dropped en route given artificial respiration which made him worse and he died. if given correct treatment 75% chance of recovery but original attacker still liable

R v Jordan - V had allergic reaction to antibiotics so was taken off them then, the next doctor didn’t check his form and prescribed them again.

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

malice aforethought

A

Lord Coke;
EXPRESS malice aforethought - intention to kill
IMPLIED malice aforethought - intention to cause GBH

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

direct intention

A

directly intending to kill someone
R v Mohan - told to stop, accelerated at police officer

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

oblique intention

A

D didn’t intend to cause a particular result but in acting the way they did death/GBH was a virtual certainty
R v Maloney - stepfather and gun

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

transferred malice

A
17
Q

D can be guilty of murder even though they didn’t intend to kill

A

R v Vickers - D broke into sweetshop, old lady who owned it saw him so he punched and kicked her in the head-she died
>implied malice aforethought