Scenario Plans Flashcards
Murder - Introduction
Murder is a common law defence which was defined by Lord Coke who defined it as the ‘unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being, under the monarch’s peace, with malice aforethought, express or implied.’
Murder - Actus Reus
The actus reus for murder is ‘an unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the monarch’s peace’ The murder can be due to an omission as shown in R V Gibbins and Proctor. APPLY
Murder - Causation
The defendant must have a factual causation using the but-for test as shown in R V Pagett, where it must be established that it was because of the defendants actions that the consequence happened. Legal causation must also be established, which suggests that D’s actions must be more than minimal, as shown in R V Kimsey, and lastly, there must be no intervening act which breaks the chain of causation (R V Pagett). APPLY
Murder - Mens Rea
As for the mens rea, it is the ‘malice aforethought, express or implied’. Express malice is direct intent (R V Mohan) and oblique intent (R V Woollin). Implied malice is intending GBH but instead murder is caused, as seen in R V Vickers. Transferred malice can also make you guilty, as shown in R V Gnango. APPLY
Diminished Responsibility - Introduction
Diminished responsibility is a partial, special defence to murder. It is set out in the Homicide Act 1957 (as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009). Anyone who kills or is party to a killing will not be liable for murder, but instead voluntary manslaughter, if they have an abnormality of mental functioning that arose from a recognised medical condition; this must impair the ability of D to exercise self-control, or form a rational judgement, or understand their actions, and must explain the killing.
Diminished Responsibility - Abnormality of MF
In R V Byrne, an abnormality of mental functioning was described as one “that would be termed by the ordinary man as abnormal”. APPLY
Diminished Responsibility - Medical Condition
This must arise from a recognised medical condition. This covers physical mental and psychological conditions which can be evidenced - usually via a doctor or specialist. We tend to use the WHO database to judge what is ‘recognised’ but this can evolve, as is the case with Battered Person Syndrome. APPLY
Diminished Responsibility - Substantially Impair
This medical condition must substantially impaired D’s ability to either understand the nature of his conduct, or, form a rational judgement, or, exercise self-control. Many cases have evolved the meaning of ‘substantial’, including R V Byrne where it was decided that the jury must decide. APPLY
Diminished Responsibility - Reason For Killing
The defence must show that the medical condition led to abnormality of mental functioning which led to the criteria in b and is the reason for the killing. This principle was introduced in CJA 2009. There must be a link between b and c. This was shown in Golds, where the medical condition was one in which there are ‘episodes’ rather than one state of mental functioning. APPLY
Diminished Responsibility - Intoxication
In Dietschmann, Lord Hutton directed “Has D satisfied you that, despite the drink, his mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibilities for his fatal acts?”. APPLY
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Introduction
Gross negligence manslaughter is where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim and has acted in a negligent way, leading to loss of life. The negligence must be so bad, it is criminal. This was defined in R V Broughton which established the 6 elements: duty of care, breach of duty, serious and obvious risk of death, reasonable foreseeable risk, breach of duty made a more than minimal contribution to the death, the breach was exceptionally bad and was gross negligence and criminal.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Duty Breached
In order to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter, D must owe a duty of care to V and this duty of care must be breached. A duty of care can be established to apply in a contractual duty, as shown in R V Litchfield. This duty is breached if there is a risk of death which isn’t protected against, as shown in R V Evans. APPLY
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Reasonably Foreseeable
The risk of death must be reasonably foreseeable, as shown in R V Rudling, and serious and obvious, as shown in R V Rose. This means that a risk may be present, but it must be reasonable to expect D to foresee this and the risk must be serious, and obvious enough to an average person in the circumstances of D. APPLY
Gross Negligence Manslaughter - More Than Minimal
Finally, the breach must be more than minimal in causing the death and must be criminally and grossly negligent. This means negligence does not have to be the only or main cause of death, but it must be significant, as shown in R V Broughton. The breach must also be so bad, it is criminal, as shown in R V Bateman. APPLY
Unlawful Act Manslaughter - Introduction
Unlawful act manslaughter is where the defendant had intended to commit an unlawful act which has, as a consequence, caused the death of a victim. This act must be a dangerous act in that it was one which a sober and reasonable person would regard as dangerous. If found liable for UAM, you will be found guilty for involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing without direct or oblique intent to cause GBH or to kill.
