Murder Flashcards
1
Q
What is the actus reus of murder?
A
The unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace.
2
Q
What does ‘under the King’s peace’ mean in murder?
A
The killing must occur during peacetime, not in a context like war.
3
Q
What case law supports the requirement that the victim must be a human being?
A
Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) and Malcherek.
4
Q
Can killing be considered lawful in some circumstances?
A
Yes, self-defense, defense of another, or prevention of crime may make the killing lawful.
5
Q
Does the death of an unborn child count as murder?
A
No, a fetus is not considered a ‘human being’ until it is born and has a separate existence.
6
Q
What is factual causation in the context of murder?
A
Factual causation is established by the ‘but for’ test – but for the defendant’s actions, the victim would not have died.
7
Q
What case demonstrates the ‘but for’ test?
A
R v White and Pagett.
8
Q
What is legal causation?
A
Legal causation requires the defendant’s act to be more than a minimal contribution to the death and the operative and substantial cause of harm.
9
Q
Which case illustrates that the defendant’s actions must be more than a minimal contribution?
A
R v Kimsey.
10
Q
What does the term ‘operative and substantial cause’ mean?
A
The defendant’s act must be a significant factor in causing the victim’s death.
11
Q
What is an intervening act in the context of causation?
A
An act or event that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s actions and the victim’s death.
12
Q
How can medical intervention affect the chain of causation?
A
Medical intervention can break the chain if it is ‘palpably wrong.’
13
Q
Which case demonstrates that medical treatment usually does not break the chain of causation?
A
R v Cheshire.
14
Q
Can a victim’s own actions break the chain of causation?
A
Yes, if the actions are not foreseeable or are deemed unreasonable.
15
Q
What is the thin skull rule?
A
The defendant must take the victim as they find them, including any pre-existing conditions.
16
Q
What is the mens rea required for murder?
A
‘Malice aforethought’ – an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
17
Q
What is express malice aforethought?
A
The direct intention to kill.
18
Q
What is implied malice aforethought?
A
The intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), which results in death.
19
Q
What is direct intent in murder?
A
When the defendant’s aim or purpose is to bring about the victim’s death.
20
Q
What is indirect (oblique) intent?
A
When the defendant foresees that death or serious harm is a virtually certain consequence of their actions, even if it was not their primary aim.
21
Q
What does R v Vickers establish about intent in murder?
A
An intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient for murder.
22
Q
Which case outlines the test for indirect or oblique intent?
A
R v Woollin.
23
Q
What is the significance of Matthews and Alleyne in indirect intent?
A
It reinforced that foresight of virtual certainty can be used as evidence of intent.
24
Q
What does the case of R v Mohan define about direct intent?
A
Direct intent is where death or serious injury is the defendant’s aim or purpose.
25
What is transferred malice in murder?
When the defendant intends harm to one person but unintentionally causes harm to another.
26
Explain the facts of R v White.
The defendant poisoned his mother, but she died of a heart attack before the poison took effect. He was not guilty of murder as the poison did not cause her death.
27
How does R v Pagett illustrate factual causation?
The defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield, and she was shot by police. 'But for' his actions, she would not have died.
28
What happened in R v Kimsey regarding causation?
The defendant was involved in a car chase that led to a fatal accident. Her actions were more than a minimal cause of the death.
29
What did R v Smith clarify about causation in murder?
The initial wound inflicted by the defendant remained an operative and substantial cause of death, despite poor medical treatment.
30
In R v Jordan, how did medical treatment break the chain of causation?
The victim was given incorrect medical treatment, which was deemed 'palpably wrong' and broke the chain of causation.
31
How does R v Roberts demonstrate the victim’s own act breaking the chain of causation?
The victim jumped out of a moving car to escape sexual assault, and her actions were considered foreseeable.
32
What is the significance of R v Williams in relation to the victim’s own actions?
The victim’s response was considered unreasonable, as he jumped from a car after an attempted robbery, breaking the chain of causation.
33
What does R v Dear show about causation and the victim’s actions?
Even though the victim reopened his own wounds, the defendant’s initial act was still an operative cause of death.
34
How does the thin skull rule apply in R v Blaue?
The defendant stabbed a Jehovah’s Witness who refused a life-saving blood transfusion. The defendant was still liable for her death.
35
What principle does the thin skull rule reinforce?
The defendant must take the victim as they find them, including all vulnerabilities.
36
What is the primary distinction between direct and indirect intent?
Direct intent is when the outcome is the defendant’s aim, whereas indirect intent involves a consequence that is virtually certain.
37
What test did R v Woollin establish for indirect intent?
The virtual certainty test – if death or serious harm was virtually certain and the defendant appreciated that, intent can be inferred.
38
How did Matthews and Alleyne interpret the Woollin test?
It held that foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of intent but does not automatically equate to intent.
39
Why is R v Mohan significant in understanding direct intent?
It clarifies that direct intent is when the defendant’s purpose or aim is to cause the prohibited consequence.
40
In what case was transferred malice applied?
R v Latimer, where the defendant intended to harm one person but accidentally injured another.
41
What is the principle of transferred malice?
Intent can transfer if the defendant aims to harm one person but accidentally harms another.
42
Can transferred malice apply if the intended harm is different from the actual harm?
No, the harm must be of the same type.
43
Explain the facts of R v Latimer.
The defendant swung a belt at someone but accidentally hit another person. The intent transferred to the unintended victim.
44
Why did R v Pembliton not qualify for transferred malice?
The defendant intended to hit a person but broke a window instead; the harm was not the same type.
45
How is transferred malice used to establish mens rea in murder cases?
If intent to harm one person is established, it can transfer to the actual victim if they are harmed instead.
46
What does novus actus interveniens mean?
It refers to a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.
47
How can third-party actions affect causation in murder?
Third-party actions, like grossly negligent medical treatment, can break the chain if they are 'palpably wrong.'
48
What would make medical treatment not break the chain of causation?
If it is not 'palpably wrong' and the initial injury remains a substantial cause of death.
49
What impact does the victim’s refusal of medical treatment have on causation?
It does not break the chain, as seen in R v Blaue under the thin skull rule.
50
Can the victim’s own recklessness break the chain of causation?
It can, but only if the actions are deemed unreasonable.
51
What did R v Dear suggest about causation and self-inflicted harm?
The defendant remained liable even though the victim reopened their own wounds.
52
What concept did R v Smith clarify about causation?
The defendant’s actions must remain a significant and operative cause of death.
53
What does R v Cheshire illustrate about causation in medical intervention?
Medical treatment generally does not break the chain of causation unless it is highly negligent.
54
What are the implications of R v Jordan for causation in murder cases?
Medical treatment can break the chain if it is exceptionally poor and not connected to the original injury.
55
In R v Roberts, how did the court rule on foreseeability and causation?
The victim’s actions were deemed foreseeable given the threat, maintaining the chain of causation.
56
If a defendant shoots at a group intending to kill one person but kills another, is this murder?
Yes, under transferred malice, the intent transfers to the actual victim.
57
What if the defendant intended serious harm but caused death instead?
This is murder, as intention to cause grievous bodily harm suffices for murder.
58
If a victim dies due to their own refusal of medical treatment after an assault, is the defendant liable?
Yes, under the thin skull rule, the refusal does not break the chain of causation.
59
How would an intervening act like severe medical negligence affect a murder charge?
It could potentially break the chain of causation if the negligence is extreme.
60
What if a victim’s own reckless actions result in their death after an assault?
The chain of causation could be broken if the victim’s actions are deemed unforeseeable and unreasonable.
61
If a victim is seriously injured by the defendant but dies due to inadequate medical care, is the defendant still liable for murder?
Generally, yes, unless the medical care was so grossly negligent that it broke the chain of causation (R v Cheshire).
62
What happens if the defendant intends to frighten the victim, but the victim dies as a result of their reaction?
The defendant may still be liable if the reaction was foreseeable, as in R v Roberts.
63
Can transferred malice apply if the intended and actual harm are different types?
No, transferred malice only applies if the harm is of the same type, as illustrated in R v Pembliton.
64
If a defendant intends to harm someone but misses and accidentally kills a bystander, is this murder?
Yes, under transferred malice, the intent transfers to the unintended victim.
65
In a case where a defendant’s action causes fear that leads to the victim’s accidental death, how is liability determined?
Liability depends on whether the victim’s reaction was foreseeable; if so, the defendant may still be liable.
66
How does R v Pagett illustrate the role of third-party actions in causation?
The defendant used his girlfriend as a shield, and she was shot by police; he was liable as her death was a foreseeable result of his actions.
67
Can a defendant argue that an unforeseen heart attack was the cause of death and not their assault?
Only if the heart attack was entirely unrelated and unforeseeable; otherwise, the initial assault remains the cause.
68
If a victim dies from an infection caused by the defendant’s actions, is the defendant liable?
Yes, if the initial injury remains the substantial cause of death and the infection is a direct result of it.
69
In what circumstances might an injury not lead to a murder charge if the victim dies later?
If there is a significant intervening act, like grossly negligent medical care, that breaks the chain of causation.
70
If the victim’s refusal of treatment leads to death, is the defendant still liable?
Yes, under the thin skull rule, the defendant takes the victim as they find them (R v Blaue).
71
How does R v Woollin help define indirect intent?
It established that if death or serious harm was a virtual certainty and the defendant foresaw it, intent can be inferred.
72
If the defendant intends to seriously harm but not kill the victim, and the victim dies, what is this classified as?
This is murder, as intent to cause grievous bodily harm suffices for murder.
73
In R v Matthews and Alleyne, how was indirect intent further clarified?
The court ruled that foresight of virtual certainty is evidence of intent, but not the same as direct intent.
74
What is the significance of foreseeability in indirect intent?
Foreseeability of a virtually certain outcome can be used to establish intent even if it wasn’t the defendant’s aim.
75
If a defendant claims they “only meant to scare” the victim but the victim dies, how might the court interpret this?
The court may examine whether the defendant foresaw serious harm or death as virtually certain, potentially inferring intent.
76
What does R v Jordan tell us about medical intervention in causation?
It shows that “palpably wrong” medical treatment can break the chain of causation.
77
How does R v Cheshire differ from R v Jordan in terms of causation?
In R v Cheshire, medical treatment did not break the chain as the initial injury was still a substantial cause of death.
78
When does medical treatment break the chain of causation?
When the treatment is so poor that it becomes the primary cause of death, rather than the original injury.
79
What must the prosecution prove regarding medical intervention and causation?
That the defendant’s actions were still a substantial cause of death despite medical treatment.
80
If a victim dies after a botched surgery for injuries caused by the defendant, is the defendant still liable?
Generally, yes, unless the surgery was grossly negligent to the point it became the primary cause of death.
81
What is the thin skull rule?
The defendant must take the victim as they find them, including any vulnerabilities or pre-existing conditions (R v Blaue).
82
How did R v Blaue apply the thin skull rule?
The defendant was liable for the victim’s death after she refused a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs.
83
If a victim has a health condition that makes injuries worse, is the defendant still liable for murder?
Yes, under the thin skull rule, the defendant is responsible for all consequences of their actions.
84
Can the thin skull rule apply to psychological vulnerabilities?
Yes, if the defendant’s actions lead to a fatal response due to the victim’s psychological condition.
85
What does the thin skull rule ensure in terms of liability?
That the defendant cannot escape liability due to the victim’s unique characteristics or vulnerabilities.
86
What is “malice aforethought” in murder?
It refers to the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
87
Does “malice aforethought” require actual malice or hatred?
No, it simply means an intent to kill or seriously harm, regardless of feelings toward the victim.
88
What distinguishes express from implied malice?
- Express Malice: Direct intent to kill. The defendant’s primary aim or purpose is to cause the death of the victim.
- Implied Malice: Intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) rather than to kill, but the actions result in the victim’s death. This intent to cause serious injury is enough for a murder charge if death occurs.
89
What is the difference between express and implied malice aforethought?
Express malice aforethought is the direct intent to kill, while implied malice aforethought is the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which results in death.
90
Does implied malice aforethought suffice for a murder charge?
Yes, intent to cause serious harm (grievous bodily harm) that results in death is enough for a murder conviction.
91
In R v Vickers, how was implied malice established?
The defendant intended to cause serious harm, which led to the victim’s death, establishing implied malice.
92
What does R v Cunningham clarify about malice?
It clarifies that malice in murder can include recklessness as to causing grievous bodily harm if the defendant foresees serious harm as a likely outcome.
93
Does the mens rea of murder require premeditation?
No, intent can be formed immediately before the act; premeditation is not required.
94
If a defendant accidentally kills someone during an argument but intended to cause harm, is this murder?
Yes, if the defendant intended to cause serious harm (implied malice), it can still constitute murder.
95
Can 'reckless indifference' lead to a murder charge?
Only if the recklessness amounts to foresight of serious harm or death; otherwise, it may lead to a lesser charge like manslaughter.
96
If a defendant claims they 'didn’t mean to kill' but foresaw death as a virtual certainty, what might this imply?
This could imply indirect intent, as foresight of virtual certainty can be used to infer intent (Woollin test).
97
Can a defendant be charged with murder if they intended only to injure but used lethal force?
Yes, if the injury inflicted was severe enough to indicate an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
98
What happens if a defendant accidentally kills while attempting to commit another crime?
If the crime involved intent to cause harm, transferred malice might apply, resulting in a murder charge.
99
Is a murder charge possible if the defendant claims they 'lost control' during the act?
Yes, loss of control does not negate intent but might be considered as a partial defense, reducing murder to manslaughter.
100
What are the key components the prosecution must prove in a murder case?
The prosecution must prove the actus reus (unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace) and mens rea (malice aforethought, either express or implied).
