Murder

Question 1

What has been made clear from the wording ‘malice aforethought’?

Answer 1

• There does not actually have to be any malice because there can be liability for mercy killing

Question 2

Vickers 1957

Answer 2

• Made it clear that intention to cause GBH can be included as the MR for murder
• Clarified the MR for murder

Question 3

Nedrick 1986

Answer 3

• Defined the meaning of intention
• Put paraffin through the letterbox of a woman he had a grudge against which killed her 12 year old son
• Appealed on the guidance from TJ that is should be ‘highly probable’
• It should have been Virtually certain so convicted of MS instead

Question 4

Woolin 1998 (leading case)

Answer 4

• TJ originally said there had to be a substantial risk which was no enough so It was substituted for murder
• Meant that the question the jury has to ask is when trying to decide whether D intended to kill/cause GBH did they FORESEE that death or GBH would be VIRTUALLY CERTAIN for his acts

Question 5

Before the Homicide act 1957 what did the law include?

Answer 5

• Constructive malice where a person could be convicted if he caused death while committing/attempting felony or while resisting arrest.
• There was no need for intention to kill or cause GBH and the death penalty still existed which was to harsh

Question 6

What did the Homicide Act 1957 abolish and what did it replace it with?

Answer 6

• Constructive malice and replaced it with malice aforethought

Question 7

What is the main concern of English law?

Answer 7

• Concerned with INTENTION not MOTIVE

Question 8

DPP v Smith 1961

Answer 8

• Driving a car containing stolen property and stopped on route by routine traffic checks and accelerated away after staring to pull over
• Police man held on ans Smith tried to shake him off and he died
• Argued he lacked intent
• Convicted with death sentence
• HOL upheld the conviction but granted reprieve from the death sentence
• ’ What would the ordinary, responsible man in all the circumstances have contemplated as the natural probable cause?’

Question 9

What did the government introduce in response to DPP v Smith?

Answer 9

• They introduced Section 8 Criminal justice act in order to narrow the law
• The question of intention and foresee ability was put back to a subjective test

Question 10

When was the death penalty abolished?

Answer 10

• 1965

Question 11

R v Moloney 1985

Answer 11

• D’s stepdad said to him ‘You don’t have the guts to fire the shotgun but if you do pull the trigger’
• He did this but claimed it was not his intention to kill or cause GBH
• Appealed and HOL quashed conviction and changed to manslaughter because TJ should have left meaning of intent for jury to decide upon

Question 12

If it is necessary to give guidance to the jury on intention what should this be as set out in Moloney 1985?

Answer 12

• Was the death of GBH a natural consequence of the D’s act and if so did the D foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence’

Question 13

R v Hancock and Shankland 1986

Answer 13

• Incident around the minors strike
• Men pushed a brick over the motorway with car with man who was not striking in and killed the driver
• They said they only intended to frighten and block the road
• Trial judge directed jury as set out in Moloney
• Appealed successfully as there should be a degree of probability in the result occurring