Murder

Question 1

Modern definition of murder

Answer 1

Unlawful killing with malice aforethought

Question 2

Lawful killing examples

Answer 2

Self defence, police, war, DNR

Question 3

R v Martin

Answer 3

the force must be necessary

Question 4

Attorney General’s reference (No 3 of 1994)

Answer 4

To be born you must be fully expelled from the womb and capable of life independent of the mother

Question 5

R v Malcharek and Steel

Answer 5

Death is when brain stem activity ceases

Question 6

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Answer 6

Life sustaining treatment can be withdrawn from a patient in a persistent vegetative state as long as the court has given permission and it is in the patients best interests to do so

Question 7

DPP v Clegg

Answer 7

The country is not under the Queen’s Peace when war has been declared

Question 8

Express malice

Answer 8

The defendant expressly intends to cause death

Question 9

Implied malice

Answer 9

The defendant intends to cause GBH but the victim dies

Question 10

DPP v Smith

Answer 10

GBH means really serious harm

Question 11

Vickers

Answer 11

Intention to cause GBH is sufficient MR for murder if the V dies

Question 12

R v Mohan

Answer 12

Direct intent- D aims to bring about the prohibited consequence

Question 13

R v Woollin

Answer 13

Oblique intention:

1) Consequences of the action are virtually certain

2) AND D realises this

Question 14

R v Matthews and Alleyne

Answer 14

Proving the 2 part test is only EVIDENCE of intent- its actually up to the jury.

Question 15

R v Thabo-Meli

Answer 15

Single Act Transaction theory

Question 16

Fagan v MPC

Answer 16

Continuing act

Question 17

R v Latimer

Answer 17

Transferred malice works

Question 18

R v Pembliton

Answer 18

Transferred malice doesn’t work (assault to property)

Question 19

R v Blaue

Answer 19

The thin skull rule shows that vulnerabilities of V do not break the chain of causation because D must take V as he finds them

Question 20

R v Jordan

Answer 20

Medical professionals can break the chain of causation if their acts are unreasonable, unforeseeable, and palpably wrong

Question 21

R v Pagett ( FC)

Answer 21

Factual causation uses the but for test

Question 22

R v Smith

Answer 22

Legal causation uses the operative and substantial test, meaning D is a significant cause of the consequence. D will be a significant cause if there are no intervening acts which break the chain of causation

Question 23

R v Roberts/Williams

Answer 23

V’s actions can break the chain of causation if they are unreasonable and unforeseeable

Question 24

R v Pagett (AoTP)

Answer 24

Acts of a third party can break the chain of causation if they are unreasonable and unforeseeable