Murder

Question 1

What is the catch all term for all categories of fatal offences

Answer 1

Homicide

Question 2

What does homicide mean

Answer 2

All conceivable ways of killing

Question 3

What is the mens rea of murder regulated by

Answer 3

Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964

Question 4

What does section 4 of the criminal justice act say

Answer 4

Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing cant be murder unless the accused
Intended to kill/cause serious injury whether to the person killed or someone else

The accused is presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his actions but this may be rebutted

Question 5

What is the actus reus of murder

Answer 5

UNlawful killing

Question 6

When can a kiling be lawful

Answer 6

Where x kills y in self-defence but uses no more force than what is reasonably necessary

Question 7

Chief Justice Coke in 1640

Answer 7

Actus reus (the physical act) of murder = same as manslaughter → unlawfully killing a human being under the King’s Peace within a year and a day.

Mens rea (the mental element) = what separates murder from manslaughter.

👉 So, murder and manslaughter share the same actus reus, but differ in mens rea.

Question 8

Sound Memory and Age of discretion

Answer 8

The defendant should be legally sane and over the age of criminal responsibility.

If a person is insane at the time, special verdict giver- guilty but insane

Question 9

What was the age of responsibility at common law

Answer 9

7

Question 10

What does the age of responsibility mean

Answer 10

Anyoen under it will be considered to be incapable of committinge the crime

Question 11

What are the ages where there is a rebuttable presumption of incapacity

Answer 11

7-14

Question 12

What is the rebuttable presumption of incapacity also referred to as

Answer 12

Doli Incapax

Question 13

How could the presumption of incapacity be rebutted?

Answer 13

If evidence could be provided that at the time the child was committing the offence, they knew that what they were doing was gravely/seriously wrong.

Question 14

knew that what they were doing was gravely/seriously wrong.
Anoither phrase

Answer 14

Mischevious direction

Question 15

If the presumption is rebutted or if the child was above the age of 14, what coudl happen?

Answer 15

The child could be tried like an adult

Question 16

What are the new statutory changes to incapacity and children

Answer 16

Age of responsibility: Raised from 7 → 12 (S129 of criminal justice act).

Exceptions: Children 10+ can still be tried for murder, manslaughter, rape, or aggravated sexual assault.

DPP’s consent: Needed before prosecuting any child under 14.

Court’s discretion: For children under 14, the case may be dismissed if the child lacked a full understanding of their actions, judged by age and maturity.

Question 17

What are the requirements for the actus reus of murder

Answer 17

1. The killing must be unlawful
2. Any reasonable creature in Rerum natura
3. Wihtin a year and a day (abolished)
4. Causation

Question 18

1. The killing must be unlawful

Answer 18

If its done in self defence and use of reasonabley necessary force, then it will be lawful

Question 19

2. Reasonable creatire in rerum natura

Answer 19

The person must be a human, cant be commited against an animal

Question 20

What was the year and a day rule

Answer 20

The death must have occured within a year and a day of the initial assault

Question 21

What statute abolished the year and a day rule and why

Answer 21

s38 of the criminal justice act

Because of medical advancements, life can be sustained for so much longer now
causation can be scientifically proven long after injury.

Question 22

What case law talks about the year and day rule

Answer 22

R v Quitting and Adams

Question 23

R v Quitting and Adams

Answer 23

At common law, death had to occur within a year and a day of the act to prove causation, but due to medical advances this rule became outdated and was abolished by s.38

Question 24

What is another key case in relation to the year and day rule

Answer 24

AG reference no 3 1994

Question 25

AG reference no 3 1994

Answer 25

The UK Court of Appeal held that if a foetus is injured in the womb and later dies after being born alive, it can be the victim of murder—an approach that could also apply in Irish law.

Question 26

Cusation- what type of eoffence is murder

Answer 26

A result offence Must be proved that the assault caused the result Cant be guilty of murder if the victim is not dead

Question 27

What is the point of death?

Answer 27

Charleton et al note that since 1976, UK medical authorities (and likewise in Ireland) recognise **irreversible brain stem death** as the point of death, with the decision to end artificial support normally made by two doctors.

Question 28

What do smith and hogan point oiut in relation to causation and murder

Answer 28

What matters is that the accused’s act accelerates the victim’s death, even if the victim was already terminally ill, injured, or otherwise destined to die.

Question 29

Mens rea of murder

Answer 29

Intention to kill or seriously injure

Question 30

What if the person intended to cause something less than serious harm

Answer 30

Manslaughter

Question 31

What is the threshold for murder and whats the threshold of manslaughter

Answer 31

Murderr- to cause serious harm/to kill NO RECKLESSNESS Manslaughter: recklessness can suffice

Question 32

What is the doctrine of transferred ,malice

Answer 32

If X intends to kill or seriously injure Y, shoots at Y but misses, killing Z instead, X will be guilty of the murder of Z. X’s malice, i.e. an intention to kill or seriously injure, is transferred from Y to Z, thereby rendering X guilty of Z’s murder.

Question 33

What was the previous common law felony rule

Answer 33

if X kills Y in the course of committing a felony, X is automatically guilty of Y’s murder, notwithstanding that he did not intend to kill or even cause serious injury to Y.

Question 34

How is the common law felony rule abolished

Answer 34

(s.4(1)), A can only be guilty of murder if the prosecution proves he intended to kill or cause serious injury. Otherwise, it might only be manslaughter.

Question 35

Whats another rule

Answer 35

Imagine B stabs someone in the chest with a knife, and the victim dies. The law presumes B intended the natural and probable consequence of stabbing someone in the chest — namely, death or serious injury. However, if B claims he only intended to scare the victim and accidentally stabbed too hard, he doesn’t have to prove this. Instead, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that B did in fact intend to cause serious harm or death.

Question 36

The abscense of a body in murder State the case

Answer 36

A body is not a prerequisite for a prosecution of murder. AG v Ball

Question 37

AG v BAll

Answer 37

FActs: Defendant was charged with the murder of his mother. Argued that his mother committed suicide and he disposed of her remains in the sea out of shame and embarrassement and the stigma that surrounded suicide at the time. Held: Police found a blood stained hatchet in the house and blood splattered all over the house LAck of body was not fatal to prosecute and circumstantial evidence was sufficient

Question 38

Whats another relevant piece of legislation for the murder of specific individuals

Answer 38

Section 3 of the criminal jjustice act

Question 39

Section 3 of the criminal jjustice act

Answer 39

Murder of garda/prison officer acting in course of duty Murder of a foreign head of state/diplomat committed within the state and for a political motive Murder in furtheranve of objectives like threat to social security or politics

Question 40

What si the actus reus of a section 3 murder

Answer 40

i) unlawful killing of a Garda or prison officer who is acting in the course of duty Doesnt apply to off duty gardai or prison officer II) unlawful killing of a foreign head of State, member of a foreign government or foreign diplomat within the State. Doesnt apply to killing outside the state II/ III) the prosecution must prove that the accused murdered for a political or subversive motive respectively

Question 41

What is th emens rea of a section 3 murder?

Answer 41

an intention to kill or seriously injure some person.

Question 42

S3(2)a

Answer 42

s.3(2)(a), “a person shall not be convicted of murder to which this section applies or of an attempt to commit such a murder unless that it is proved that he knew of the existence of each ingredient of the offence ... or was reckless as to whether or not that ingredient existed.”

Question 43

Case example of s2(3)a

Answer 43

DPP v Murray

Question 44

DPP v Murray

Answer 44

theprosecution must prove, not only an intention to kill or seriously injure some person, but also that the accused either knew his victim was a Garda or was reckless as to whether or not he was a Garda. Furthermore, it must prove that he either knew the Garda was acting in the course of his duty or was reckless as to whether or not the Garda was so acting.

Question 45

History of murder punishment

Answer 45

Before the 1964 Act, murder was a capital offence. After the 1964 Act, only murders under s.3 of the 1990 Act could receive the death penalty. All other murders carried a mandatory life sentence. S.1 of the 1990 Act abolished the death penalty. In 2002, a referendum removed all references to the death penalty from the Constitution.

Question 46

Punishment for section 3 murder

Answer 46

Minimum 40 years imprisonment

Question 47

Punishment for an attempred s3 murder

Answer 47

Minimum 20 years imprisonment

Question 48

Punishment for other murders

Answer 48

Now, all murders carry a mandatory life sentence. Average life sentence duration: 8–12 years.

Question 49

Whats the difference in mens rea for murder and the mens rea for attempted murder

Answer 49

Mens rea for murder: intention to kill or cause serious injury. Mens rea for attempted murder: intention to kill only. This creates an anomaly between murder and attempted murder.

Question 50

What case commented on attempted murder v murdser and what did it say

Answer 50

People (DPP) v Douglas and Hayes highlighted that no justification for this difference was provided by the Court of Criminal Appeal.