Murder

Question 1

Definition of murder

Answer 1

“unlawful killing of any person under the King’s Peace with intention to kill or cause GBH to the victim”- Coke, 17th century, as developed by the courts

Question 2

Unlawfully

Answer 2

R v Beckford: if D is able to rely on self-defence, the killing won’t be unlawful

Question 3

Killed

Answer 3

R v Gibbons & Proctor: can be an act or omission in breach of duty
R v Adams: necessary to show that D accelerated V’s death by more than a negligible amount of time

Question 4

A person

Answer 4

Vo v France: foetus does not necessarily have a right to life under ECHR
Re M (Declaration of Death of Child): a person dies once the brain ceases to function- ‘brain death’

Question 5

Victim’s consent is irrelevant

Answer 5

R v Nicklinson: court said they could not make it lawful for doctors to assist individual in dying
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland: where patient is insensate with no hope of recovery, doctors could lawfully remove treatment even where it was known that they would shortly die as a result

Question 6

Intention

Answer 6

R v Moloney: can be direct
R v Woollin: can be indirect

Question 7

Kill or cause GBH to V

Answer 7

DPP v Smith: really serious harm
R v Bollom: harm can be GBH even though it would not pose a risk to V’s life
R v Cunningham: intent to cause GBH is sufficient

Question 8

Rough sex

Answer 8

We cannot consent to this campaign: by 2019, 67 cases raised the ‘rough sex’ defence; 60 were female victims; all 67 were male perpetrators
Bows and Herring: many men seem to assume that women consent to rough sex and strangulation without even asking
Edwards: “it is only men who have been charged and convicted of “rough sex” homicide. No man has died form “rough sex” committed by a woman.”

Question 9

Is the law on murder too broad?

Answer 9

Gardner: “intention to cause serious harm crosses a moral threshold, at which point the defendant is responsible for creating his own bad luck”
Law Commission: “rickety structure set upon shaky foundations”
Lord Goff: “it seems very strange that a man should be called a murderer even though not only did he not intent to kill the victim, but he may even [in certain cases] have intended that he should not die”
R v Powell (Lord Steyn): recommended “intention to kill or cause serious harm coupled with awareness of the risk of death”

Question 10

Is intention the appropriate MR?

Answer 10

Pillsburry: rather than looking at intention, key question should be D’s attitude
Goff: did D show “wicked recklessness”?