Section B- Fatal Offences Murder And Manslaughter Flashcards

Question

The men’s Rea of murder and cases

Answer 1

The mr for murder is known as malice aforethought which means the intention to kill or intend GBH Direct intent- main aim to produce a certain result- mohan Oblique intent- D intends one outcome but the actual consequence which occurs is another one - death or serious injury is virtually certain- woolin Implied malice aforethought- vickers

Answer 2

d sped towards PC and he had to jump out the way Held- direct intent is doing everything they can to bring about the desired result

Answer 3

The D broke into shop and beat the old lady who owned it and she died Held- COA established the intention to kill or cause GBH is sufficient men’s Rea to prove malice aforthought

Answer 4

Violently shook baby who was choking and threw towards pram- killing him Held- jury must only give verdict or murder if they found D foresaw death or series injury as a virtual certainty

Answer 5

VM is where D has satisfied the AR and MR of murder however there us a defence as to why they killed which would reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter Both of these defences are set out in the coroners and justice act 2009 and are partial defences

Answer 6

(S.52(1))Abnormality of mental functioning (S.52(1)(a))Arises from a recognised medical condition (S.52(1)(b))Substantial impairment of ability (S.52(1)(c))Provides an explanation of the Ds conduct Diminished responsibility and intoxication (only in pq if relevant)

Answer 7

Defined in s.2 homicide act 1957 and amended by s.52 coroners and justice act 2009 as A person should not be convicted of murder if they are suffering from (A) an abnormality of mental functioning which (B) arises from a recognised medical condition (C)which substantially impairs their ability to understand the nature of their conduct; or from a rational judgement; or exercise self control (D) and provides an explanation of Ds actions

Answer 8

The accused must suffer from abnormality of mental functioning which is established through medical evidence. This was established in Byrne as being ‘a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that a reasonable man would term it abnormal. Jury must decide if D was suffering an AMF at the time of the killing

Answer 9

d was a sexual psychopath who strangled a young woman and mutilated her body. His condition meant he could not control his perverted desires. Held- conviction for murder was quashed by the COA and given manslaughter as his state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that a reasoable man would term in abnormal

Answer 10

The abnormality of mental functioning must arise from a medical condition that is recognised by psychiatrists according to an internationally defined list. The list is wide and included- alcohol dependency syndrome (ADS) (tandy) battered spouse syndrome (alluwalia) depression (seers) and schizophrenia (Kay) coercive control (challen) New conditions are added to the list such as autism (Conroy) Where doctors agree On a RMC then murder must be withdrawn from the jury (Brennan)

Answer 11

Hit husband with hammer killing him after he had been in failthful Held- her murder conviction was overturned by the COA after coercive control. The depression cause by the husband meant the defence of diminished responsibility could be raised.

Answer 12

Alcoholic strangled her 11 year old to death. She drank whole bottle of vodka and was an alcoholic Held- conviction of murder upheld as had demonstrated she had exercised control as able to stop drinking at 6.30pm and the bottle wasn’t empty

Answer 13

D poured petrol over sleeping husband and set him on fire as he was abusive. Held- COA didn’t allow her to appeal on basis of provocation as their action had to be sudden rather than immediate and the longer the delay the more delibeted However allowed diminished responsibility on BSS

Answer 14

D was suffering from reactive depression and stabbed his wife to death He could rely on his depression and was not liable for stabbing his wife to death

Answer 15

Schizophrenia D was paranoid schizophrenic and habitual drug user. Went on 3 day drug and alcohol binge and stabbed someone to death. Held- whilst S can be used as a defence but as voluntary intoxication triggered his reaction the appeal was rejected

Answer 16

Autisms D has autism and adhd and lived in a residential home and formed an obsession with a resisident he went on room intending to have sex with her and when she didn’t want he strangled her Held- COA upheld his conviction

Answer 17

The abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired Ds ability to do one or more of the three gateways -understand their conduct (s.52 (1A)(a)) where the D is in an automatic state and doesn’t know what he is doing e.g. delusions -form a rational judgement (s.52(1A)(b))- D not able to form a rational judgement e.g. paranoia or BSS. - ability to exercise to self control (s.52(1A)(c)) D cannot stop himself from killing (Byrne)

Answer 18

New element added by coroners and justice act 2009 Ds abnormality of mental functioning must be a casual connection to why the D killed Abnormality does not need to be the only reason why D killed but must be a significant factor

Answer 19

Only go in a PQ if relevant When d is intoxicated at the time of the killing the jury need to decide whether diminished responsibility can be used there is a number of rules to help them decide: 1. If intoxicated alone can support defence of DR- dowds 2. D has pre existing AMF and intoxicated jury must ignore he is intoxicated and decide if AMF was significant towards the killing- Kay 3. If D suffers from ADS it would be considered as RMC and defence used- Tandy

Answer 20

D and gf were binge drinkers and d stabbed gf and killed her. He appealed on the grounds that his state of acute intoxication should have a possible defence for DR Held- appeal dismissed- acute intoxication not able for founding DR

Answer 21

Alcoholic who drunk heavily for 2 days and spends night at v house- when he wakes up he is being SA and killed the guy who SAing him. Held- conviction for murder quashed- ADS can be a RMC

Answer 22

Dietschmann Kay

Answer 23

As long as the RMC was the overriding reason for the killing then te alcohol can be disregarded Conviction for murder substituation for manslaughter

Answer 24

AMF- (s.52(1)) RMC-(s.52(1)(a)) Substantial imapairment of ability (s.52(1)(b)) Provides an explanation of Ds conduct(s.52(1)(c))

Answer 25

Is a partial defence to ,under and if successful d will be guilty of manslaughter. S.54 coroners justice act 2009 defines the defence of loss of control

Answer 26

1. Loss of self control 2. The qualifying triggers 3. The normal person test (s.54(1)(c))

Answer 27

S.54(1)(a)- the killing by D must be a result of Ds loss of self control S.54(2)- the loss of control does not have to be sudden- question for the jury.- this ,means that the length of time between what triggers caused the killing and the killing itself does not have to be short there could be a ‘cooling off period’ S.54(4)- if a person acts out of revenge then the defence will fail- there can he no evidence of plan or pre-meditation. Although the LOC does not need to be sudden D must have really lost control or snapped. Just loosing temper is not sufficient. Jewel

Answer 28

Loss of self control D killed and said he did so because he was sleeping badly and so unable to think straight Held- this was insufficient and was liable of the murder of his colleague

Answer 29

S.55 sets out which triggers are allowed to be used for loss of control S.55(3) d feared serious violence- does nit need to be a reasoable fear as long as it was honestly thought by D (lodge&goodwin) S.55(4) a thing said or done which is extremely grave character and causes d to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged- anger (zebedee&hatter) S.55(5) the trigger can be a combination of both the above triggers S.55(6)(c)- the tigger cannot be due to sexual infidelity (Dawes) unless its combined with other trigger (Clinton)

Answer 30

Qualifying triggers- fear violence D lost his self control and killed v, a small scale drugs dealer after v had attacked him with a baseball bat Held- jury accepted D had lost self control in a response to serious violence from V.

Answer 31

Justifiable sense of being seriously wronged D murdered his 94 year old dad after he had soiled himself repeatedly Held- conviction was upheld and the defence of loss of control failed- the thing dome did constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character and give a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Answer 32

Would a person of Ds age and sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of D react the same or similar way? -other circumstances apart from age and sex are considered such as Ds mental health history and history of sexual abuse (hill)(sexually abused as child) Asmelash states that intoxication will not be taken into account Rejamski Burden of proof- the jury must be satisfied that the defence has been made out unless the CPS prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendent had not lost control.

Answer 33

D suffered from PTSD as a result of his service in Afghanistan and V had provoked him with negative comments about his role in the army Held- the courts stated while a disorder such as PTSD may be relevant there was insufficient evidence that it was true cause in this case so they had to exclude it during the ‘normal person test’

Answer 34

is an unlawful killing where the D does not have the intention (either direct or oblique) to kill or cause GBH. the max sentence is a discretionary life sentence.

Answer 35

involuntary- is an offence, D has killed without any intention to kill voluntary- is a defence to murder, D has killed with the intention to kill or cause GBH, D has a reason why they killed- lost control or RMC.

Answer 36

1. he has committed an unlawful act 2. the act was dangerous 3. it caused the death of Y 4. it is the MR of the unlawful act in question

Answer 37

the act commited must be a crime and is normally an assault against the person. franklin stated that the unlawful act must also be a criminal offenve rather than a tort. UAM cant be committed by an ommission. lamb cato

Answer 38

two friends were playing with a revolver which they honestly beleive would not fire. D pulled trigger and killed V. held- D had not done an unlawful act- pointing a gun at V was not assault as did not fear any voilence

Answer 39

two drug addicts were injecting each other with morphine. D injected his friend which caused his death. the unlawful act was injecting someone. held- upheld conviction

Answer 40

the criminal act must be that a sober reasonable man would regard as being dangerous and carries a risk of some harm occuring. objective test established in church the UA may not need to be aimed at V but may be aimed at another person (larkin) JF and NE- sufficient the act may cause injury not death- set fire to derelict building where a homeless man was JM and SM- judged from a reasonable bystander- sober and reasoable person only had to forsee some harm not a specific type

Answer 41

D had argument about inability to satisfy her sexually. he knocked her unconcious and threw her in a river- thought she was dead. held- liable for UAM as had commited an unlawful act that was dangerous because accordibg to sober and reasonable man there was risk of some harm occuring.

Answer 42

normal causation rules apply. CIF- but for- white CIL- MR, MTMC,AD- pagett NAI- breaks causation- jordan,longbottom,dear,roberts

Answer 43

D gave V syringe with heroin and V died and D conicted with UAM as self injection was unlawful held- HOL squashed conviction if D supplies V causation isnt broken self injects- D not liable

Answer 44

3 attempted to rob petrol station and man with weak heart died robbery not dangerous as ordinary resoabke person wouldnt have been aware of heart problem.

Answer 45

D burgled frail 87 year olf man and verbally abused him burgalry considered dangerous however fact man died 90 mins later broke chain of causation- no proof burgalry caused death.

Answer 46

The MR is that of the unlawful act in question e.g. battery or robbery D does not need to realise that the act was unlawful or dangerous as long as they intended the original unlawful act Newbury and jones

Answer 47

MR Two boys who threw a paving stone onto a railway line. Hit the train and killed a guard Held- were liable- no need for D to forsee harm of his act buy also as they intended the original act

Answer 48

This is where the accused has killed the V but lacks and maliceaforethought required for murder or the men’s rea for unlawful act manslaughter. D must have owed V a duty of care but breached that care in such a way that is so criminal the negligence causes death.

Answer 49

At a musical festival, the supplied drugs to his girlfriend who had a bad reaction. He remained with her as she deteriorated and it was obvious her life was in danger. He was charged with gross negligence manslaughter as he failed to obtain medical assistance. Held- conviction was quashed as it could not be proven that she would have lived if he had called for help .

Answer 50

D. Owed a duty of care to V D. Breached that duty A serious and obvious risk of health The breach caused vs death The act is grossly negligent

Answer 51

D must owe a duty of care towards v. There are some recognised duties already however where there is not a duty the court will use the neighbour principal established in donoghue v Stevenson in order to establish whether the duty exists this test arises from the civil law of negligence. Pit wood Dytham Gibbins v proctor stone and dobinson Miller Singh Evan’s

Answer 52

In donoughe v Stevenson it states that the individuals out of duty of care to those who are so closely and directly affected by their actions that they should reasonably foresee could be injured.

Answer 53

Failed to close the gate on a railway line and it was his duty and people were killed. He had the actus reas for murder but not the MR and was charged with gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 54

A police officer witnessed a victim being beaten to death by a bouncer outside of a nightclub and failed to intervene when it was his duty of public office. Guilty of GNM

Answer 55

The defendant and his partner neglected his child and starved her to death The father had a duty of care to his daughter and the stepmom. Mum took on that duty when she became his wife.

Answer 56

The defendant sister had severe disabilities and whilst staying under the couples care she passed away on the defendants were charged with manslaughter

Answer 57

The defendant accidentally lit a mattress on fire with a cigarette and moved rooms. He had a duty to stop the danger situation he created.

Answer 58

Duty to manage maintain property by a landlord when faulty gas fire caused the death of tenants

Answer 59

Supplied heroin to her half sister who overdosed the defendant did not seek medical help to a fear of prosecution

Answer 60

Once a duty of care is established, it must be proven that D was in breach of duty Did the defendant negligently do or fail to do something? There must be a breach of duty according to the standards of the ordinary reasonable man with the same level of skills and expertise for example reasonable doctors are judge the same standard as other doctors. If they fall below this duty then they have breached the duty of care. Becker

Answer 61

A patient died from an overdose of the pain painkillers that the defendant a doctor had prescribed Held-the doctor was not guilty of gross negligent manslaughter as he had not fallen below the standard care expected of the ordinary reasonable doctor.

Answer 62

At the time of the breach the jury must conclude that a reasonable prudent person would have seen risk of death not just a risk of injury. The risk of death must be serious and obvious. Rose

Answer 63

Rose a registered optometrist had examined a boy (V) who five months later died suddenly of a medical condition. It was said that she should’ve identified this in her examination. Held- her conviction was overturned on appeal as the court stated ‘ I may possibility of something life-threatening is not the same as an obvious risk of death’

Answer 64

Causation in fact, which is determined by the bot for test in cases such as white. Causation in law where the defendant has to be morally responsible more than a minimal cause and accelerated the death in cases such as pagett. NAI- CN, self treatment, escape, intervening act. In cases such as long bottom Roberts, Jordan and Deer.

Answer 65

The breach must be so bad it justifies a criminal sanction the defendants act must’ve been so grossly negligent in the case of adomako it was confirmed this month Dean must have done something so bad It amounted to a criminal offence.

Answer 66

There was an anaesthetist in an eye operation. The oxygen tube became disconnected but the D failed to notice for several minutes whilst a competent one would’ve realised within 15 seconds. Held- defined the test of gross negligence and how that day it should be convicted if his behaviour was so bad but it amounted to a criminal offence.

Answer 67

The negligence must be so flagrant and atrocious it would consequently amount to a crime

Section B- Fatal Offences Murder And Manslaughter Flashcards

(92 cards)