Murder

Question 1

Is there a statutory definition of murder?

Answer 1

No

= common law offence

Question 2

What helps define murder?

Answer 2

Sir Edward Coke - Institute of the Law of England 1797
‘Unlawful killing of another human being, under the Queen’s (King’s) peace with the intention to kill/ cause serious harm’

Question 3

Can a killing be lawful?

Answer 3

Yes
Certain defences if pleaded successfully (self-defence)
If in time of war

Question 4

How can the AR of killing be performed?

Answer 4

Can be by act/ commission

BUT MUST cause death of V

Question 5

How can the AR of murder be done by an omission?

Give a case to illustrate this

Answer 5

Where D failed to act under their legal duty

e.g R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Question 6

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Answer 6

Failed to fulfil their duty as parents

Gibbins daughter died

Question 7

What type of crime is murder?

What does this mean?

Answer 7

Result crime
There may be a chain of causation
Factual + legal must be proven

Question 8

What 2 issues are raised by the fact that the killing must be of a human being?

Answer 8

1. What stage does foetus become a human

2. What stage during death does human become corpse?

Question 9

When is a baby/ foetus classed as a human being?

What cases illustrates this?

Answer 9

Has to have ‘independent existence than that of mother for it to be considered a creature of being’
R v Poulton (1832)
AG reference (No 3 of 1994)(1997)

Question 10

R v Poulton (1832)

Answer 10

Mother tied string around neck of baby
Killed it while being born
Ct: for baby to be considered a person, must be fully expelled from body

Question 11

Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994)(1997)

Answer 11

D stabbed G.friend, 23 weeks pregnant
She recovered, baby born early (7 months)
Died 4 months later - birth complications
D pleaded G, wounding G.friend with intent
Charged for murder of baby
Acquitted by trial judge
Prosecution appealed
CA: murder = possible; foetus = part mother
Intention towards mother, equivalent to intent directed at foetus
HL: ‘would overstrain doctrine of transferred malice’, at most manslaughter = possible

Question 12

Why was the ‘within a year and a day’ rule abolished?

Answer 12

Abolished by Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
Advances in medical knowledge
Life support machines
Now no time limit
But if after 3 years, AG’s consent = needed to prosecute

Question 13

What act abolished the ‘year and a day rule’?

Answer 13

Law Reform (Year and a Day) Act 1996

Question 14

Can D be prosecuted if death occurs more than 3 years after the unlawful act?

Answer 14

Yes

Attorney General’s consent is needed to prosecute

Question 15

What is the MR of murder often know as?

Answer 15

Malice aforethought

Question 16

What is the MR for murder?

Answer 16

Intention to kill/ cause GBH

Includes situations of assisted suicides

Question 17

What are the 2 types of intention?

Answer 17

1. Direct

2. Indirect (Oblique)

Question 18

What is direct intent?

Answer 18

Accused wants the result to occur + sets out to achieve it

Question 19

What is indirect intent?

Answer 19

(Oblique)

Accused didn’t desire a particular result but but acting the way that they did, they realised that it might occur

Question 20

What is a problem with indirect intent?

Answer 20

Has proved difficult to define

Number of cases have sought to define it

Question 21

R v Hyam (1972)

Fire

Answer 21

D wanted to scare V
Both in love with same man
D put fire through letterbox
Caused 2 children to die
HL: D foresaw consequences of her actions as highly probably, that meant intention
Even if didn’t want to kill children, knew that it could’ve been highly likely to happen

Question 22

What case overruled the principles set in Hyam?

Answer 22

R v Moloney (1985)
Hyam was declared to be bad law
Just; someone foresaw risk didn’t automatically mean that they intended it

Question 23

R v Moloney (1985)

gun contest

Answer 23

D = drinking heavily with father
Had disagreement about who could load + fire gun quickest
D loads 1st, claimed not to have aimed
Shot + killed father
Lord Bridge formulated 2 part test:
Was death/ serious injury natural consequence of D’s act?
Did D foresee that?

Question 24

What is the 2 part test that Lord Bridge cam up with in the case of Moloney (1985)?

Answer 24

1. Was death/ serious injury the natural consequence of the D’s act?
2. Did the D foresee that?
   If ‘yes’ to both, jury can infer intention

Question 25

What case was the virtual certainty test created in?

Answer 25

R v Nedrick (1986)

Question 26

What did the CA do in the case of R v Nedrick (1986)?

Answer 26

Crystallised rulings of Moloney + Hancock | Created virtual certainty test

Question 27

What are the 2 parts to the virtual certainty test?

Answer 27

1. How probable was the consequence which resulted form D's voluntary act? 2. Did D foresee the consequences as virtually certain? Only if jury = satisfied D recognised GBH/ death = virtually certain from voluntary act can intention be inferred DOESN'T MEAN they intended the result

Question 28

R v Woollin (1999) | baby chocked

Answer 28

``` 3 month baby chocked on food D lost temper Shook + threw baby across room Baby hit head D: 'didn't mean to kill/ cause GBH' BUT harm = virtually certain Conviction substituted by HL for MS; trial judge referred to 'substantial risk' rather than 'virtually certain' ```

Question 29

What is transferred malice?

Answer 29

Transferred MR D intent to kill/ seriously harm V but accidentally harms/ kills another Can be G of crime against V no. 2

Question 30

What case illustrates the doctrine of transferred malice?

Answer 30

Latimer (1886)

Question 31

Latimer (1886) | belt

Answer 31

D having argument in pub Took off belt + swung it Missed intended V, but wounded a woman Even though = accident, still convicted of malicious wounding

Question 32

what must be established in murder?

Answer 32

Factual + legal causation