Murder - Main cases

Question 1

Thabo Meli v R

Answer 1

as long D intended GBH or death at some point, that satisfies

• so long as chain of causation isn’t broken by a novus actus
• because they drugged + beat him, when they threw him off a cliff, they thought he was already dead so no mens rea
• can join chain of events together

Question 2

Att-Gens Reference (No.3)

Answer 2

killing a foetus isn’t causing a death of another human being so it isn’t murder

Question 3

R v Matthews & Alleyne

Answer 3

Threw boy in river, knew he couldn’t swim, was teasing him

• they walked away
• murder by omission is possible
• they caused the death
• and they had the mens rea (they intended GBH or death)

Question 4

Re B

Answer 4

Patient made a decision and doctor followed

• he did what he needed to discharge the duty
• not murder

Question 5

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Answer 5

Doctors are not guilty of murder because they stopped feeding him
- treating the patient is no longer in his best interest

Question 6

R v Cunningham (1982)

Answer 6

Picked up a chair and hit someone over the head

• enough to show mens rea for murder
• just need intention to cause GBH, no need to show that D foresaw or intended that V might die

Question 7

R v Steane

Answer 7

indirect intention

• if act results in something certain, jury may find him guilty
• if room for other views, jury might find intent did not exist

Question 8

R v Maloney

Answer 8

Intention is subjective

Question 9

R v Lipman

Answer 9

Majewski does not apply for specific intent offences - can raise voluntary intoxication of LSD to jury

Question 10

R v Nedrick

Answer 10

if person does what is virtually certain to cause GBH or Murder it is indirect intention murder as long as D foresaw/understood this to be the case

Question 11

R v Woolin

Answer 11

confirmed Nedrick - D must be “virtually certain” of the risk of GBH

Question 12

Beckford v R

Answer 12

if you believe someone is going to shoot you, your action to shoot as self defence is judged on your own belief of the circumstances

Question 13

Sharman v HM Coroner

Answer 13

innocent man shot because of mistaken belief, but that’s fine since self defence is judged on your own perception of the circumstance

Question 14

R v Hatton

Answer 14

can’t rely on your own perception of self defence if you are drunk

Question 15

R v Fennel

Answer 15

you can’t use self defence if force used against you is lawful (son detained lawfully)

Question 16

R v Julien

Answer 16

cannot provoke attacker and punch first as “self defence” unless you think he is going to do more than punch you

Question 17

R v Jones

Answer 17

only use self defence if you cannot call for help - no excuse for bat mans

Question 18

R v Bryne

Answer 18

diminished responsibility = abnormality of mental functioning but need not be severe

Question 19

R v Dowds

Answer 19

acute intoxication NOT recognised as a means condition

Question 20

R v Golds

Answer 20

“substantially impaired” means medical condition must substantially or appreciably impair ability beyond minimal or trivial

Question 21

R v Dietschmann

Answer 21

provide that medical condition did substantially impair, it does not matter that there were other causes too (here, he was drunk)

Question 22

R v Dix

Answer 22

up to jury to decide if abnormality substantially affected

Question 23

R v Clinton

Answer 23

threshold has risen for what might make D feel seriously wronged

Question 24

DPP v Camplin

Answer 24

HL said what a reasonable person of the same age and gender would do (loss of control)

Question 25

AG for Jersey v Holley

Answer 25

what a reasonable person of the same age and gender would do - don’t consider mental abnormalities (that’s for diminished responsibilities)

Question 26

R v Amelash

Answer 26

voluntary intoxication cannot be taken into account

• permanent characteristics ruled out
• consider life history but nothing else that might trigger D at the time