Criminal Murder Revision

Study online at quizlet.com/_drhdw

1.

Definition of Murder: Murder is a common law offence and is defined as "unlawful homicide with malice aforethought". Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965: Murder carries a mandatory life sentence. Actus reus: "Unlawfully killing a reasonable person in being and under the King's peace" Coke Actus reus Unlawful: It is lawful to kill: in battle, for justice and in self-defence. Actus reus Killing: Causes the death. (Causation). R v Poulton: Actus Reus 'a reasonable person in being'. The whole body of the person must be brought into the world Actus Reus Queen's peace: Does not apply during a time of war. R v White: Causation. Factual Causation. 'But for' test. Dalloway: Causation. Must be caused by D's culpable act. Would the outcome have occurred anyway? R v Kinsey: Causation. D's action must be a cause with more than a trifling link.

25.

R v Vickers: Malice aforethought means. 1. An intention to kill. 2. An intention to cause GBH. Saunders: GBH is serious harm. R v Latimer: Transferred Malice. Mens Rea can be transferred from one offence to another, where both offences require the same mens rea. Here: belt fight.

2.

26. 27.

3.

4.

28.

R v Moloney: Direct Intention. Intention is given its ordinary meaning and must be inferred by the jury. It is different from motive and desire.

5. 6.

29.

Chandler v DPP: Direct Intention. A long term benevolent motive is irrelevant so long as there is the sufficient Mens Rea for the Actus Reus. Here: vandalising an aircraft to protest against a military conflict.

7.

30.

R v Woollin: Oblique Intention. Steyn - Oblique intent occurs when in the absence of intention to cause death or GBH D appreciates that it is a virtual certainty. It is unclear whether this is evidence of intention or a definition of a type of intention. This may leave room for a moral judgment too.

8. 9.

10.

31.

R v Matthews and Alleyne: Oblique Intention. The court has not yet reached a definition of murder in terms of an appreciation of virtual certainty.

11. 12.

R v Benge: Causation. D's Act need not be the only cause. R v Church: Actus Reus and Mens Rea. So long as a series of events, it doesn't matter if mens rea doesn't match with actus reus. [killed prostitute who laughed at him. Threw body in river thinking dead and she drowned.
32.

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA): Provides partial defences to murder R v Campbell: The partial defences under the CJA do not apply to attempted murder S54(1)(a) CJA: Loss of self control is a partial defence to murder R v Clinton: The burden is on the prosecution to disprove the partial defences and if just one element is missing the defence will fail. -The old common case law is largely irrelevant. - The CJA partial defences have 'raised the bar' for this defence. - The issue of revenge must be considered within the element of loss of control. -Although CJA says on its own sexual infidelity cannot be a trigger for loss of control, if there are taunts or threats it is possible to include it so that the jury get the whole story. In practise it may be intertwined. - S55(4) (trigger 2) is objective.

33.

13.

R v Pagett: NOI. Third Party Actions. Will only break causation if they are free, deliberate and informed.
34.

14.

R v Hayward: NOI. Thin Skull Rule. Take victim as you find them [chased wife into street]
35.

15.

R v Smith: NOI. The courts are reluctant to let medical malpractice break the chain of causation. R v Mackie: NOI. Acts of the victim. Reasonable foreseeability test. Toddler fell downstairs running away. R v Roberts: NOI. Acts of the victim. In a 'flight' situation, causation will only be broken if V's actions are "so daft". R v Williams: NOI. Acts of the victim. In the agony of the moment, V may act without thought. The jury may be told of any particular characteristics relating to the deceased. Unanswered question as to whether the jury may consider characteristics D was unaware of such as depression??

16.

17.

18.

36.

S54(2) CJA: Loss of control need not be sudden (analogy to Ahulwalia under old law) S54(1)(b) CJA: There must be a qualifying trigger... S55(3) CJA: Qualifying Trigger 1. Fear of serious violence from the victim R v Martin: Shot burglars in his farmhouse, one died. No provocation or self-defence but have been a defence under S55(3). CJA may allow for unreasonable force to be used (i.e. when selfdefence is not available).

19.

R v Holland: NOI. Acts of the victim. Refusal of treatment does not break causation.
37. 38.

20.

R v Dear: NOI. Acts of the victim. Suicide that involves opening up wounds does not break causation. May be distinguished if wounds healed.

21.

R v Kennedy: NOI. Acts of the victim. Supplying a drug does not cause the drug to be administered R v Girdler: NOI. Acts of the victim. A common sense approach should be sued when deciding on which test should be used.

39.

22.

40.

S55(4) Qualifying Trigger 2.: Things said or done (or both)... S55(4)(a) The things said or done must constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character... S55(4)(c) and causes the defendant to have justifiable sense of being seriously wronged...

23. 24.

Mens Rea: 'Malice aforethought' Inglis: Mercy killing is no defence in English law

41.

R v Acott: Steyn - losing control because of slow-moving traffic caused by snow, e.g., would not justify this defence. R v Ahluwalia: Trigger 2. A long term victim of domestic abuse was threatened by her husband and when he was asleep poured petrol over him and lit it.

60.

R v Bryne: Under the old law abnormality of mind is "a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal". Here: sexually assaulted, strangled to death and mutilated a young girl.

42.

61.

S52(1)(a) CJA: The abnormality of mental functioning must arise from a recognised medical condition R v Reynolds: Post-natal depression and pre-menstrual tension have been recognised as medical conditions. R v Tandy: Alcoholism (arising from disease/injury) has been recognised as medical conditions. CPS Medical Conditions relating to mental health: Personality disorders, eating disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, mental illnesses such as depression, bi polar disorder and schizophrenia, and learning disabilities.

43.

R v Thornton: -Trigger 2. consistently abused by an alcoholic husband who she killed with a knife that she had sharpened in the next room. - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder has been recognised as medical conditions.
62.

63.

44.

R v Humphreys: Trigger 2. Following long term sexual and mental abuse D stabbed her husband when he threatened to rape her.

64.

45.

R v Baille: Trigger 2. A man whose son had been threatened by a drug dealer drove to his house, slashed his throat and shot him twice.
65. 66.

R v Fenton: Hate, jealousy and bad temper do not count. S52(1)(b) CJA: The abnormality of mind must cause substantial impairment of d's ability to do one of the things in S2(1A)...

46.

R v Doughty: Trigger 2. A baby crying was sufficient under the old law would no longer be a legitimate trigger under the CJA. R v Davies: Trigger 2. Adultery was sufficient under the old law would no longer be a legitimate trigger under the CJA. S54(1)(c) CJA: The reaction must be that of a normal person in d's circumstances of same sex and age... This is an objective test (Similar to under HA 57) requiring the jury to assess seriousness of the incident and consider whether a reduction to manslaughter is warranted.. S54(1) says factors that affect ability to exercise restraint cannot be taken into account.

47.

67.

R v Simcox: The impairment must be more than trivial or minimal. Law Comm Report No. 304 S2(1A)(a): 'understand the nature of his conduct': a ten year old boy who plays lots of video games kills his friend and does not understand he cannot be revived.

48.

68.

69.

Law Comm Report No. 304S2(1A)(b): 'form a rational judgment': A woman suffering from PTSD caused by domestic abuse believes that only burning her husband to death will rid the world of his sins; a mentally sub-normal boy is told by his brother to kill someone; a depressed man assists the suicide of his terminally ill wife because he cannot think straight until he helps her. (c.f. R v Cocker Pausing for thought can show intention.)

49.

R v Camplin: Taunts made on the basis of race, physical infirmity or some shameful past incident may be considered underS54(1)(c) However, the reasonable man has ordinary powers of self-control and in his reaction.

50. 51.

R v Richens: Loss of control need not be complete. S54(4) CJA: Loss of control cannot be used in act of 'considered revenge'
70.

Law Comm Report No. 304S2(1A) (c): 'control him or herself': a man says the devil takes control of him and makes him want to kill; the devil will not go away until he does so.

52.

R v Ibrams: S54(4) Revenge. Seven days lapsed between the last act of bullying. Clear evidence of planning. S55(6) CJA: The defendant cannot create the qualifying trigger as an excuse to use violence. R v Johnson: The jury could still consider provocation when a man who started a fight in a club stabbed someone.
72. 71.

53.

S2(1B) CJA: The abnormality of mental functioning must provide an explanation for the defendant's act. A causal link must be established but it need not be the only case. R v Dietschmann: If the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the killing, the jury should then ask themselves: has the defendant satisfied you that, despite the drink, 1. He was suffering from mental abnormality; and 2. His mental abnormality substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his fatal acts? Alcohol may still be a factor, it is just necessary that the abnormality to also be a factor.

54.

55.

S55(6)(c) CJA: The defence cannot be relied on if the thing said/done constituted sexual infidelity. R v Morhall: The reasonable man is always sober. There is a distinction between a D who is taunted for having an addiction and a D who is simply intoxicated at the time. The jury would have to consider the gravity of the provocation on a sober alcoholic.

56.

73.

Wood: the jury must consider whether ADS was a significant factor in choosing to drink. If it was, the defence will be available.

57.

S52 CJA: Diminished Responsibility is a partial defence to murder

74.

R v Stewart: For Diminished Responsibility, the first step is to find an abnormality of mental functioning. This must come from a recognised illness. D may still have an abnormality of mental functioning despite having a condition. The nature and extent of D's ADS should also be considered.

58.

S2(2) Homicide Act 1957: Diminished responsibility, like Loss of Defence, is a partial defence and the burden is on D to prove that it applies on the balance of probabilities.

59.

S52(1) CJA: For Diminished Responsibility there must be an abnormality of mental functioning...

75.

Re Dowds: Voluntary and temporary binge drinking, even if habitual, does not lead to this defence. He stabbed his wife when drinking heavily and argued he had Acute Voluntary Intoxication, a medical condition recognised by the ICD and the DSM. However, these also include 'unhappiness', irritability and anger, intermittent explosive disorder. In its introduction the DSM warned against a too rigid application of the categories to legal issues.