Murder

Question 1

Actus Reus of murder

Answer 1

“Unlawful killing of a reasonable person who is in being and under the King’s peace” (Coke)

Question 2

Lawful Killing:

Answer 2

• Killing enemy soldiers in battle
• Advancement of justice
• Self defence (force reasonable and necessary)

Question 3

Child must be fully expelled from mother’s body and born alive

Answer 3

R v Poulton

Question 4

Pregnant woman stabbed; child born prematurely and died. Child was not a live person when stabbed and so not murder

Answer 4

AG-Ref (No3 of 1994)

Question 5

Not necessary for umbilical cord between mother and child to have been cut

Answer 5

R v Reeves

Question 6

Factual Causation

But for test

Answer 6

R v White

Question 7

Legal Causation

Consequence must be caused by defendant’s guilty act

Answer 7

R v Dalloway

R v Marchant

Would’ve died even if act done legally = not murder

Question 8

Legal Causation

Defendant’s act need not be the only cause of the prohibited consequence

Answer 8

R v Benge

Question 9

Legal Causation

Defendant’s act must be the substantial and operating cause of the prohibited harm

Answer 9

R v Cato - not trifling

R v Kimsey - more than minimal

Question 10

NAI

Medical negligence - inappropriate and harmful treatment did not break the chain of causation

Answer 10

R v Smith

Question 11

NAI

Medical negligence - must be ‘so extraordinary as to be independent of the defendant’s act’

Answer 11

R v Cheshire

Question 12

NAI

Intervention of third parties

Answer 12

R v Pagett - actions of third party must be free, deliberate and informed

Question 13

NAI

Thin skull rule - victim’s infirmities will not break the chain of causation

Answer 13

R v Hayward

R v Blaue

Question 14

NAI

Acts of the victim - flight and fright

Is escape foreseeable?

Answer 14

R v Mackie (3 year old ran away from attack - foreseeable)

R v Roberts - is victim’s reaction ‘so daft that no reasonable person could have foreseen it’. Trying to escape sexual advances was foreseeable’

R v Williams & Davis - defendant’s tried to rob kitchhiker at knifepoint; jumping from fast car was unforeseeable as there was no actual violence

Jury will have same knowledge as the defendant had at the time of the act; BUT William & Davis may have extended this to allow the jury to be told of any particular characteristics of the deceased (e.g. depression). This awaits clarification.

Question 15

NAI

Acts of the victim - refusal of medical treatment

Answer 15

R v Holland - wound was real cause of death, refusal of treatment was not a NAI

confirmed in R v Blaue

Question 16

NAI

Acts of the victim - suicide

Answer 16

R v Dear - reopening wounds and failing to stop blood flow was not a NAI as he died from original wound

Less clear where injuries have healed, but later suicide - what is the reason for the suicide?

It may be argued that where suicide is reasonably foreseeable (e.g. sportsman becoming paralysed), applying R v Roberts and R v Williams & Davis, that the chain of causation is not broken by the suicide.

But R v Kennedy (person supplying drugs does not cause administration and chain of causation is broken by the injection) casts doubt on this argument

Question 17

NAI

Natural events

Answer 17

Natural events will only break the chain of causation if they are ‘extraordinary’ and not foreseeable

Question 18

Mens Rea - murder

Answer 18

Malice aforethought

• Intention to kill - express malice
• Intention to cause GBH - implied malice (R v Vickers)

Question 19

GBH = Serious harm

Answer 19

R v Saunders

Question 20

Direct Intent: Result is the reason for the defendant’s actions (subjective)

Answer 20

R v Maloney - intention should be given ordinary meaning

Question 21

Oblique Intent: the consequence is not the defendant’s purpose but rather a side effect that he accepts as inevitable to his direct intention.

Not available where recklessness is capable of constituting the MR

Answer 21

R v Maloney - it must be a natural consequence of the defendant’s act which he foresaw as a natural consequence; foresight of probability cannot amount to intention.

R v Nedrick - jury cannot infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or GBH was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that such was the case

Test adopted by HL in R v Woolin but jury must find (rather than infer) the necessary intention).

Unclear whether oblique intention is a definition of intention or merely evidence of intention. R v Maloney said it could only be evidence of intention, but much criticised by academics. Draft Criminal Code includes oblique intention in its definition of intention.

Question 22

Ulterior motives are irrelevant

Answer 22

Chandler v DPP - motive was to encourage government to abandon nuclear weapons, but intention was to immobilise the aircraft, which was illegal.