Murder Flashcards
(21 cards)
Murder Definition
‘Where a person of sound memory and of the age of discretion unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being, under the King’s peace, with malt aforethought’
Sound Memory Definition
The person must not be insane
What is the age of discretion?
A child less than 10 years old is not criminally responsible
Living human being
A foetus is not considered a living human being
R v Malcherek and Steel Case and POL
Case - Defendant had seriously wounded the victim causing irreversible brain damage and was only alive due to a respirator which was eventually turned off causing him to die.
POL - Appeal failed as it was not the doctor that had killed him it was his act that led to his death
What does King’s peace mean?
Killing an enemy during wartime is not murder
Malice Aforethought
Since the case of R v Moloney the mens rea of murder is the intention to kill or cause Grievous Bodily Harm
Actus Reus
The actus reus of murder is that the killing is unlawful, causation must be established (A caused B’s death) and the victim must be a human being
Mens Reus
The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought which is the intention to kill or cause GBH
R v Vickers
Case - Victim was hit several times and died
POL - If a defendant intends GBH and they die from their injuries this is enough for murder
R v Barrow
Case - Defendant killed his neighbour and her two children with intentional fire and walked away
POL - Held to be murder as he aimed to kill them by walking away and intentionally setting the fire
Direct Intent
This is what the defendant desired e.g pointing a gun at someone and shooting at them because you want to kill them. It was their aim and purpose to kill
R v Mohan
POL - ‘A decision to bring about, so far as it lies within the accused’s powers (the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not.’
Indirect or oblique intent
This is not necessarily what the defendant desired but what he foresaw would almost certainly happen d.g he sets fire to a building and kills someone, did her foresee that risk that death might occur?
R v Moloney
Case - Drunken game led to the death of stepfather POL - Established that a person can have intention where they did not want the result but merely foresaw. Foresight is merely evidence from which intention can be found.
Virtual Certainty Test
Where a direct intention is not present then the following test should be put to the jury
R v Nedrick
POL - A jury should return a verdict of murder only where they find that the defendant foresaw death or serious injury as a virtual certain consequence of his or her voluntary actions
The crucial issue is what the defendant actually foresaw and intended, not what he should have foreseen or intended
R v Woollin
POL - Confirmed the Nedrick test
R v Matthew and Alleyne
POL - A defendant foresight of virtually certain death does not automatically require the jury to find that he intended that result. It is merely evidence from which the jury may draw that conclusion.
Doctors and Euthanasia
Euthanasia can mean doctors can be liable for murder if they had the intention for causing the death of human being
Re A 2001
Case - Weaker twin Mary was living off Jodie’s vital organs if the operation did not take place they would both die
POL - CA held that the doctor would have the defence of necessary when operating knowing it would result in a death
