1
Q
homicide
A
- the unlawful killing of a human right,
2
Q
different homicides
A
- there are different homicide offences depending on the mens rea of the defendant and whether there is a special defence available,
- most serious homicide is murder,
- murder is a common law offence - not found in statute,
- accepted definition is based on one given in a case by a 17th century judge - lord coke,
3
Q
actus reus of murder
A
- “the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the king’s/queen’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied”,
- unlawful is important –> killing is not unlawful if what is done is in self defence or in prevention of crime and the defendant used reasonable force in the circumstances,
4
Q
killing - act or omission
A
- most cases, actus reus will be an act, e.g. a shooting,
- it’s possible for murder to be committed by an omission if the defendant owed a duty to the victim,
5
Q
contractual duty
A
- pittwood,
6
Q
duty because of a relationship
A
- gibbons and proctor,
7
Q
duty under taken voluntarily
A
- stone and dobinson,
8
Q
chain of events
A
- miller,
9
Q
gibbons and proctor
A
- rare example of omission amounting to murder,
- failure to feed daughter was enough for the AR of murder,
10
Q
“reasonable creature in being”
A
- human being must be killed for it to be murder,
11
Q
two problems with “creature in being”
A
- is a foetus in the womb a “reasonable creature in being”,
- is a victim still considered to be alive if they are brain dead, but kept alive on a life support machine,
12
Q
foetus
A
- killing a foetus is not murder,
- the child has to have existence independent of it’s mother to be a creature in being,
- umbilical cord doesn’t need to have been cut,
13
Q
attorney general’s reference
A
- d stabbed girlfriend who was 2-3 weeks pregnant,
- she recovered but it caused her to give birth prematurely 7 weeks later,
- baby was born alive but died 4 months later as a result of premature birth,
- house of lords held where foetus is injured and child is born alive but dies afterwards, as a result of injuries, can be actus reus for murder or manslaughter,
14
Q
brain dead
A
- unclear whether someone brain dead would be a reasonable person in being,
- doctors who switch of life support machines are not liable for homicide (Malcherek),
- suggests the test for death is whether someone is brain dead, however there are no cases to clarify this point,
- courts may decide a defendant who switches off the machine not as a medical decision, but intending to kill the victim could be guilty of murder,
15
Q
under the king’s peace
A
- killing an enemy in the course of law is not a murder,
- however, killing a prisoner of war would be sufficient for the AR of murder,
16
Q
mens rea of murder
A
- from Lords’s definition, mens rea is “malice aforethought express or implied”,
- “express malice aforethought” is the intention to kill,
- “implied malice aforethought” is in intention to cause grievous bodily harm,
- “grievous bodily harm” was held to mean “really serious harm” in DPP v Smith,
- can also include really serious psychiatric harm if medically proven - Burstow,
17
Q
express and implied intention
A
- either of these intentions will suffice,
- meaning a person can be guilty of murder even if they did not intend to kill,
18
Q
vickers (1957)
A
- d broke into cellar of local sweet shop, knowing old lady was deaf,
- old lady caught vickers - he hit her several times,
- kicked her head in - she died,
- court of appeal upheld his conviction for murder - intent to cause GBH is sufficient,
19
Q
intention
A
- defined in Mohan as:
“decision to bring about the prohibited consequence no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not”,
20
Q
foresight of consequences
A
- main problem is proving intention is where Ds main aim was not the death of the victim, but something quite different,
21
Q
Woollin (1998)
A
- virtual certainty test,
1. was death or injury a virtual certainty as a result of the Ds actions,
2. did the D appreciate that such was the case,
3. if yes to both the jury may find the D intended the consequence but they do not have to,
22
Q
murder flow chart (paragraph 1)
A
- actus reus ‘the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature (Human being) in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.’
- murder can be committed by an omission (Miller, Gibbons and Proctor, Stone and Dobinson) as well as a voluntary act,
23
Q
murder flow chart (paragraph 2)
A
- reasonable creature in being = a human being, a foetus is not a human being, it is only considered to be a human once it has been expelled from the womb. injuried caused whilst in the womb resulting in the death of the baby following birth will result in criminal liability,
- persons who are ‘brain dead’ are also not considered human beings Malcherek decides that a doctor is permitted to switch off the life support machine of a person who is brain dead,
24
Q
murder flow chart (paragraph 3)
A
- causation - both factual and legal causation must be proved,
- factual - ‘but for’ test - Pagett,
- legal - ‘the chain of causation’,
25
murder flow chart (paragraph 4)
- mens rea
- 'malice, aforethought, express or implied'
- this means an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (really serious harm, DPP v Smith) - as defined in vickers,
26
murder flow chart (paragraph 5)
- intention can be direct or indirect,
- direct intention - the defendant's aim is to bring about the prohibited consequence - Mohan,
- is the defendants aim to kill or to cause really serious harm? if yes, the defendant is likely to be convicted of murder,
27
murder flow chart (paragraph 6)
- if no,
- indirect intent - this is relevant when the defendant does not intend to kill or cause GBH, but his aim is something entirely different,
- if so use the virtual certainty test from Woollin,
- is the consequence (death/GBH) a virtually certain consequence of the d's actions and did the d appreciate this?
- it is a matter for the jury to decide, Matthews and Alleyne - if the virtual certainty test is established, it is not intention itself, but, evidence from which the jury may find intention, if they choose so,
criminal liability
flashcards
Decks in class (9)
# Cards
