ZAMBIA OPEN UNIVERSITY

SCHOO OF LAW
2018 SECOND SEMESTER

NAME: ZULU KONZANI JOSEPH

COMPUTER No.: 21810738

PROGRAMME: BACHELOR OF LAW (LLB)

COURSE CODE: LL6

COURSE TITLE: CRIMINAL LAW II

CONTACT LECTURER: Dr. MWANSA

ACADEMIC YEAR: 1st YEAR

SEMESTER: 2 (TWO)

ASSIGNMENT No.: 1

DUE DATE: 6th SEPTEMBER 2018

POSTAL ADDRESS: ELIM SCHOOL

P.O BOX 22667,

KITWE

Email ADDRESS: jotisa2006@yahoo.com

Mobile phone: 0961705234

QUESTION:

1. With decided cases, discuss the element of murder and manslaughter and the

difference between the two offences.

1
 INTRODUCTION

The offences of Murder and Manslaughter are criminal offences against the person and falls
in the category referred to as “fatal offences against the person” 1. These offences are called
Homicide which involves the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being, 2,
which is the Actus Reus of the same. The causing of death may not be unlawful under the
following circumstances namely:
Firstly, the execution of a properly and legally imposed death penalty on the defendant as is
in the case of the Laws of Zambia where the death penalty is still standing. So the Judiciary
still has Powers to impose the death penalty on the accused, which is a mandatory sentence
for the felony of murder, except where there are “extenuating circumstances”.3
Secondly, the killings of soldiers belonging to the enemy in the event of justifiable war, this
killing is not homicide.
Lastly, any killing that occurs as a result of a use of justifiable and reasonable force in self
defence or in the prevention of crime, this may not cover the killing of prisoners of war. It
needs to be emphasized that any killing in which the prosecution is unable to prove the
elements of homicide cannot be considered unlawful, for the law of Homicide to be applied
to the elements of actus reus and men’s rea and causation must be established in order for the
defendant to be found criminally liable.4.

1. Penal Code Cap 87, S 203

2. Hatten, R. (2004). The Criminal Law, P106, London: OUP
3. Penal Code, Cap 87, S. 201(a)
4. Kalulisika, S.E. (2015). General Principles of Criminal Law II, P2. Lusaka: ZAOU

2
1.0 MURDER

Murder being the most serious of all the fatal offences against a person, as it is one of
very few cases where the Judiciary has no discretion but impose the death penalty
upon conviction.
The definition of murder is heavily reliant on the accepted one given by Lord Coke, 5
that is, that murder is “unlawfully killing of a reasonable person who is in being, in
any country of the realm and under the King’s Peace with malice aforethought,
expression or implied.” The Zambia Penal Code insists that the death of the victim
must be within a period of one year and one day 6, unlike the English statutes, which
does not have a statutory definition for murder. It is worthy noting that the victim of
murder must be a reasonable person, meaning a human being regardless of the state
they may be, as exemplified in the case of the co-joined twins; Re A [Children]
[2001]; in this case, the doctors desired to obtain permission to separate twins, who
would both die of the operation was not conducted. The doctor has prior knowledge
that the operation who give our twins every chance of survival and would certainly
cause the death of the other. The Lords held that “Any person who of malice
aforethought causes the death of another person by unlawful act or omission is guilty
of murder”7, that the non-viable twin was a reasonable human being despite having a
“useless heart and a useless lung,” 8.
In contrast to the foregoing ruling, it is totally agreed by the courts that it is not
possible to kill someone who is already dead. This came to light in the case of:
Makherek and Steel [1981]. In this case the courts appear to agree that a person who
is “brain dead” is not a reasonable person hence incapable of being murdered. The
victim in this case, his brain stem had ceased to function, inspite of the feet that their
heart and lungs were functioning, it was unanimously agreed that a brain dead person
could not be killed by switching off the ventilator.9

5. Lord Cole’s Institute 47

6. Penal Code, Cap 87, S.200
7. Penal Code, Cap 87, S 209(1)
8. A. (Children) [2001]2, WLR 450
9. Malcherek and Steel [1951] 2, All ER 422, CA

3
 This ruling is supported in the case of: Airedale NHS Trust V Bland [1993]; were the
brain stem death test was the Orbiter dicta statement. Doctors, in this instance, were
permitted to remove life supporting machines without being reliable for murder.10
In Zambia, murder can be charged with respect to the killing of a foetus, which he
then does not regard as the Penal Code covers the offence of infantcide, 11 under
homicide, which the causing of death of one child who is below the age of twelve
months at the time of death.
ELEMENTS OF MURDER
By its definition murder requires the elements of Actus reus and Mens rea, meaning
blameworthy conduct and respect be established before criminal reliability can be
apportioned to the defendant. These elements are from a Latin maxim “actus non facit reum
nisi mens sit rea” meaning the act itself does not entail being guilt unless done with a guild
mind.12 The actus reus and mens rea must be present together but in crimes of strict liability,
the prosecution only needs to establish actus reus as the mental element is not needed to
prove guilt.
The first element, therefore, for prosecution must establish the presence of the physical
element which is Actus reus. Actus Reus covers more than an act but as well as omissions
and state of affairs. This well postulated in the Penal Code which emphasizes both an act or
omission by stating “Any person who of malice aforethought causes the death of another
person by unlawful act or omission is guilt of murder.” 13. This is illustrated in the case of:
Gibbins and Proctor [1918]; a child’s father together with his mistress failed to feed the child
leading to its death by starvation. They were both found guilt of murder by omission.14
In order for Actus reus to be proved a number elements must established according to the
Penal Code definition of murder namely:

10. Airedale NHS Trust V Bland [1993] 1 All ER821

11. Penal Code, Cap 87, S. 203
12. Martin, J. (2014), Criminal Law, P5 London: Routledge
13. Penal Code, Cap 87, S. 200
14. Gibbins & Pocter [1918] 13 Cr App R134

4
Firstly, that the act that resulted in the death of the victim was by the defendant. This means
may be referred to as the conduct of the defendant and it is a central part of the crime. The
act may be defined as a bodily movement which is voluntary. 15 The rationale for the
requirement of a voluntary act in murder is on account of the fact that only acts that result
from free choice will be criminally punished. This is cemented by Lord Denning in the case
of: Bratty V Attorney-General of Northern Ireland [1963] when he said “The requirement
that the act of the accused should be voluntary is essential in every criminal case. No act is
punishable if it is done involuntarily.”16 This act must be unlawful as per Penal Code; Cap 87,
S 200. The fact that murder can be committed by omission has been dealt with earlier in the
introduction.
Secondly, that the victim was a person in being. As already highlighted earlier, the victim
was living and in whatever condition or state. The Penal Code appears to indicate that this
exempts the foetus, as it stated “a person is considered living only when it is ejected from the
woman’s womb.”17 This position is supported by the ruling in the case of: Ponlton [1832];
when the Judges appears to have indicated that foetus becomes a human being when it has an
existence independent of its mother.18
Thirdly, the act of the defendant was substantially causing the death of the victim in fact and
law. If the victim died because of other cause, then the offence of murder has not been
committed.
The causation of death in fact is determined using the “but for” test, where it is established
that the victim’s death would not happened as and when it did but for the defendant’s action
or omission The well known case supporting this, is case of: White [1910]2 KB 124, on
which the defendant intent to kill his mother for gain emanating from her once, put poison in
her drink. The victim was found dead, having drunk a quarter of the poisoned drink, but
medical evidence determined that she died of a heart attack, not poisoning. The defendant
was acquitted of murder; because in fact, he did cause the death of his mother.19

15. Schelo, J.M. (2008), Criminal Law and Procedure. Pg 84, Belmont: Pre-Press PMG
16. Bratty V. Attorney-General of Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
17. Penal Cod, Cap 87, S. 209
18. Ponlton [1832] 5 C & P329
19. White [1910] 2KB 124

5
Factual causation is on its own insufficient for liability. Legal causation of the death must be
established as well. The legal cause of death is also based on a question to be answered by
the courts, it being; whether the death of the victim can be fairly be said to be the defendant’s
fault. The leading case in t his matter is that of: Dalloway [1847], where the defendant was
acquitted of causing the death of the victim, although the victim’s death would not have
happened but for, the defendant’s driving the horse and cart over the victim but the courts
were not convinced that the defendant was to blame. 20 Hence confirming that in the crime of
murder that legal causation, there ought to be some level of faults on the defendants conduct.
The act or omission ought to be the substantial cause of the death of the victim implies that, it
provides a more than minimal contribution to the same. This is well explained by the
Supreme Court in the case of Hughes [2013], in this case the Judges set up the minimum
threshold requirement for legal causation, when they stated the following: “where there are
multiples legally effective causes, it suffices if the act under consideration is a significant
(substantial) cause, in the sense that it need not be minimal. It need not be the only or
principle cause. “It need only be the cause which is more than minimum.” 21 Liability in the
causation assumes there is no break in the chain of causation.” The acts that happen between
the defendant’s initial act and the ultimate death of the victim have an effect on the liability
of the defendant. Sometimes the Judges will hold that intervening acts breaks the chain of
causation between the defendant’s act and the result, so that the defendant has not legally
caused the death of the victim. This is illustrated in the case of: Pagett [1983], in which the
Lord Hussman explained that events that are likely to break the chain of causation ought to
be free, deliberate and informed intervention on abnormal act or event that coinciding with or
supervening after the defendants’ conduct.22
Lastly, Actus reus of murder must have in it the death of the victim occurring within the
period of “one year and one day” in accordance with the Penal Code, Cap 87 Section 200.
This Section of the Law, creates uncertainty in the defendants who injures their victim,
wondering if may have to face homicide charges in future or even after they have been
already found guilty if a lesser charge. However, it may allow the guilty go free, if the death
occurs the second day after one year.

20. Dallonany [1847] 2 Cox CC273

21. Hughes[2013]UKSC 56, [2013 1WLR2461
22. Pagett[1953]76 Cr App R279 CA
6
Mens rea is the second element to be established in the conviction of the crime of murder.
This is the mental element of murder. The term that describes the Mens re of murder is
“malice aforethought” which generally refers intention. Intention is the highest level of
men’s rea. Section 291 of the Penal Code, Cap 87 explains intention in the following:-
Any person, who conspires with any other person to kill a person.., is guilt of a felony. This
suggests that intention can be defined as “a person acts intentionally with respect to a result
(either to kill or cause grievously to duly harm), when he acts either in order to bring it about
or being aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.”23
It is therefore clear that intention is separate from the reason why one acted the way they did
i.e. their motive. Motives are irrelevant in criminal liability whether they be good or bad as
illustrate in the Case of; Sharpe (1857), in which the defendant had good motive for
committing the crime, namely his love for his mother and his religious beliefs on account of
this motive, he exhumed his mother’s corpse from the Protestant Dissenters Cemetery in
order to bury it alongside his recently deceased father in a preferred church yard. The court
ruled that in as much as the defendant’s motives were “good” but was not a defence to the
charge of unlawful removal of a corpse. However, his motives were taken into account when
sentencing him, by imposition of a One shilling fine.24
Intention as Men’s rea for murder can be divided into 2 types namely, direct and oblique.
The direct intention which is sometimes cause purposive intention in this case, the defendant
has an aim or result in mind and desires to bring it about in so far as it is with in his power.
This intention is demonstrated in the leading Case of: Mohan V R [1976] in which the
defendant is trying to get away, drove his car at a Police Officer, who has jumped out of the
way in order to avoid injury. In convicting the defendant of attempting the cause grievously
bodily harm to a police offer, the Judge described intention as “a decision to bring about in so
far as it lies with accused power to bring about the prohibited consequence, no matter
whether the accused desired the consequence of his act or not.25

23.Martin, J. [2014]. Criminal Law P33. London: Routledge

24.Sharpe [1857] 26 LJMC 47
25. Mohan [1975] 2AII ER 193, (1975)60 Cr ADP R272

7
On the other hand, oblique intention, however, does not have to do with any specific aim of
the defendant but his foresight of the consequences that might result from their action. Being
virtually certain of these consequences, the defendant goes on with his actions. He does not
have a specific purpose to achieve those consequences, but still knew that the prohibited
consequences with virtual certainty that would happen as a result of their actions.
The leading Case on this was Woollin [1998], in which the Appellant, who had been
convicted of murder, lost his temper with his three month old son and threw him towards his
pram, which was standing against the wall. The child struck his head on a hard surface and
died from a fractured skull. The issue before the House of Lords was whether the appellant
intended to cause grievous bodily harm. The court held that intention could only be
ascertained on the assurance “that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty
(barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the appellant’s action and that he
appreciated that such was the case.” The house allowed the appeal and a conviction of
manslaughter was substituted.26.
This implies that mercy killing (killing a person to relieve them of suffering out of
compassion) and Euthanasia (the deliberate ending of life by active means) are both murder
as was illustrated in the Case of: Inglis [2010], where the accused was charged with murder
of her own son, by injecting him with a fatal overdose of heroin. The victim was in a
vegetative state of disability after falling from a moving ambulance and since then had been
on a life supporting machine. The defendant decided to kill the son quickly and peacefully to
prevent what she thought was a prolonged painful death lingering as a result of his condition.
She felt as a mother, it was her duty to release him of that suffering. In convicting the
defendant Lord Judge C J stated the following, “The law of murder does not distinguish
between murder committed for malevolent reasons and murder motivated by familial love.
Subject to well established partial defences, mercy killing is murder.
Whether or not he might have died within a few months anyway, the victim’s life was
protected by the law and no one, not even his mother, could lawfully step in and bring it to
premature conclusion.”27.

26. Woollin [1995] UKHL 28, [1999] 1 Cr App R8

27. Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637; [2011] 1 WLR 1110
2.0 MANSLAUGHTER
8
 Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another person in being. There are two main
types of manslaughter known as voluntary manslaughter and involuntary
manslaughter. The two types will be dealt with separately below:
2.1 Voluntary Manslaughter
In generalized terms voluntary manslaughter is actually murder, but with a defence,
because the defendant has both the actus reus and the Mens rea for murder. The
defence is what reduces what would otherwise been the charge of murder to voluntary
manslaughter. These defences which are only available to defendants charged with
murder are called Partial defences because if successful, the defendant will be
convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.28
There three of these defences, namely (i) Provocation (loss of self control), (ii)
Diminished responsibility (iii) Suicide pact, in these defences the accused is not
denying killing the victim or denying malice aforethought, but is appealing for excuse
from full liability for murder. Let’s look in detail at each of these defences:
2.1.1 Provocation (loss of Self Control)
This defence is not available for the charge of attempted murder. At the core of the
defence of Provocation is that a person (accused) kills another person in being in the
heat of the moment, having temporarily lost his self control.
The definition of provocation as given in the penal code Cap 87, Section 206(1) is as
following; “…. an wrongful act or insult of such nature as to likely, when done to an
ordinary, or in the presence of an ordinary person to another in his immediate case,….
to deprive him of his power of self and to induce him to assault the person by whom
the act or insult is done or offered.”
In making provision for this defence, the Penal Code, Cap 8.7 Section 205, (1),
indicate that this provocation must be sudden. This indicates that for this defence to
happen, there ought to be a qualifying “trigger” which must have caused the accused
to lose his self-control.29

27. Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637; [2011] 1 WLR 1110

28. Storey, T. (2004). Unlocking Criminal Law. Pg 321. London: Routledge
29. Martin, J. [2014]. Criminal Law, P55. London: Routledge

9
These are not highlighted in the Penal Code, Cap 87, and are therefore left to the courts to
determine. However, it is expected that whatever triggered this loss of self control should be
firstly be “circumstances of an extremely genuine character and a justifiable sense of being
seriously wronged.”30.
The difficulties arising from the defence of provocation is two-fold, the first is in respect of
how to gauge the proportionality of the accused reaction to the provocative act or insult,
secondly the understanding of who an ordinary person should be.
The leading case of provocation (loss of self control) is that of: DPP V Camplin [1978], in
this case the defendant was raped by the victim and then laughed at afterwards. The
defendant later attacked and killed the victim and was charged with murder. In substituting
the conviction from murder to manslaughter, the Judge said “being raped surely amounts to
circumstances of an extremely grave character and the defendant would no doubt feel
justifiable sense of been wronged, not just by the physical violation of rape itself but also the
psychological humiliation of being laughed at afterwards.”31.
This case must be contrasted, in regard the justification of the defendant with that in the case
of: Zebedee V [2012], where the defendant was charged with murder of his 94 year old
father, who had Alzheimer and was incontinent. The defendant stays with the victim one
night to take care of him. The defendant punched and strangled his father to death. The
defendant did not deny killing his father, but pleaded Provocation (loss of control). He
claimed that his father had soiled himself during the night, after which he had cleaned him
up, only to soil himself again after 20 minutes later, which had triggered the defendant’s loss
of self control. The defence was rejected and was convicted of murder. The Court of Appeal
upheld the conviction.32.
It is important to note that loss of self control caused by the behaviour of the defendant can
not be used as an excuse as it has been established in Common Law doctrine that provocation
can be self induced. Self induced provocation can only be accepted only if the circumstances
or the morals said were inadvertently induced.

30. English Homicide Act 1957, Section 55(4)

31. DPP V Camplin [1978] AC 715
32. Zebedee [2012] EWCA Crim 322; [2014] 1 WLR 947

10
A good example is in the case of: Dawes [2013], in which the defendant had come home to
find the victim asleep on the sofa with his estranged wife, both fully clothed. The defendant
flew into a jealousy raged and stabled the victim, killing him. The case was that the victim
had initially attacked the defendant, when he found them on a sofa. It is alleged the
defendant acted in self defence and loss of self control. The trial Judge decided that the
defendant did not qualify for that defence because he had incited the violence. He was
convicted of murder and the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.33.
Lastly, it ought to be noted that although the Penal Code, Cap 87, Section 209, does infer that
the bro of self control must be sudden and without adequate time to calm down it has been
agreed by the courts that an accumulation of acts over time can be provocative and bring
about a loss of control as illustration in the case of: Pearson [1992], in which the Judge said
that provocative acts of the victim towards the defendant’s brother over a period of years in
his absence, could still be taken into account in the defendant’s charge of murdering the
victim, who was his violent father, as being to due to loss of self control.34.
2.1.2 Diminished Responsibility
The Penal Code, Cap 87, Section 12A, makes provision, that he that is accused of
murder may advance the defence of diminished responsibility, and if successful move
have the charge reduced to Manslaughter. Section 12A(1) states: “where a person
kills or party to killing of another he shall not be convicted of murder, if he was
suffering from such an abnormality of mind (whether arising a condition of arrested
or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or is induced by disease or
injury) which has substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts or
omissions in doing or being party to the killing.” The defence of diminished
responsibility, therefore, must satisfy following as indicated by the Penal Code, Cap
87 Section 12A(1);

33. Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322: [2014] 1 WLR 947

34. Person [1992] Crim LR 193

11
i) The accused must have an abnormality of the mental functioning as
shownthe case of; Byrne[1960], where Lord Parker, CJ, gave the following desciption
of abnormality of the mind as "a state of the mind so different from that of an
ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term abnormal"35.
ii) It must be proved that it is a recognised medical conditions and there must
be proof of the same. some of the recognised medical condition that would apply are
premenstrual tension and postnatal depression, dementia, schizophrenia, maniac
depression, etc, this is well demonstrated in the case of: R V Ahluwalia [1992],
where the defendant killed her husband after a long history of violence and abuse, by
setting him alight after pouring petrol over him. The court held that the killing was
due to an abnormally of the mind called “battered woman syndrome” and the
conviction was overturned to manslaughter.36.
iii) It is well established that alcohol intoxication on its own can not be used
to support the plea of diminished responsibility as shown in the case of : Fenton
[1975], where Lord Widgery C, said “we do not see how self-induced intoxication
can in itself produce an abnormality of mind” 37. It is, however, a defence if it is an
alcohol dependence syndrome.
iv) SUICIDE PACT
In English law, there is a provision that a survivor of a suicide pact, who killed the
victim as per the pact, may not be guilty of murder but voluntary manslaughter. The
homicide act 1957,s 4(3) describes a suicide pact as" a common agreement between
two or more them persons having for its objective the death of all" The defendant has
to shoulder the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

35.Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396

36. R V Ahluwalia[1992] 4 All ER 889
37. Fenton[1975] 61 Cr App R 261

12
2.0 INVOLUTARY MANSLAUGHTER
The distinct difference of involuntary manslaughter from voluntary is the absence of mens
rea for murder. It is an unlawful killing (actus reus) without "malice aforethought", which is
the intention to kill.
There are three known forms of involuntary manslaughter, namely;

2.2.1 Constructive Manslaughter (unlawful act doctrine)

In this nature of manslaughter, it is required the death occurs due to the defendants
unlawful and dangerous act. It is ought to be proved the defendant did the act
intentionally and that the act caused the death of the victim in fact and law.
A leading case in this regards is that of:- DPP V Newbury [1976]; the defendants
from the bridge, threw concrete blocks on the rail trucks of the oncoming train. The
block crushed the train cab and killed the guard who was next to the driver. The
defendants did not intend the consequences that followed. The court held that they
intended the unlawful act and therefore were guilt of involuntary manslaughter. 38 As
regards that particular unlawful aver, there ought to exist a mens rea for the same.
2.2.2 Gross Negligence Manslaughter
In this manslaughter, the defendant causes the death of the victim who is owes a duty
of care by a grossly negligent act or omission.
The negligence is gross when it goes “beyond a matter of mere compensation
between subjects and shared such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount
to a crime against the State and conduct deserving of punishment” 39.
The leading case is that of: Adomako [1994] in which a patient died of cardiac arrest
while undergoing an operation. While under anesthesia the endotracheal tube became
disconnected. The defendant, who was the anesthetic only discover four and half
minutes of the disconnection, resulting in the death of the patient. The court ruled
gross negligence on the part of the defendant, and breach of duly owed to the
patient.40

38. DPP V Newbury [1976] 62 Cr App R291

39. Bateman [1925] All ER Rep45, (1925), 19Cr App R8
40. Adomako [1994] 3 All ER79, [1994] Crim

2.2.3 Reckless Manslaughter

13
 The meaning of reckless manslaughter is well demonstrated in the case of: Lidar
[2000] where the defendant was part of a group asked to leave a public house in
Leicester. The group got into a car in which the defendant was the driver. After
shouting at the doorman, who approached the car and put his hand through the
passenger window. The defendant started the car and dragged the victim some
distance causing fatal injuries. In upholding the conviction of manslaughter, Evans L,
described the meaning of reckless manslaughter by saying “the question was whether
the defendant was aware of the necessary degree of risk of serious injury to the victim
and nonetheless choose to disregard it or was indifferent to it.”41.

3.0 MURDER VERSUS MANSLAUGHTER (Differences)

It has been established from the above that for murder the prosecution has to establish
the Actus rea and as well as the mens, while for involuntary manslaughter there is
defence to the case of murder. Involuntary manslaughter lacks the mens rea of
murder.

41. Lidar [2000] (Unreported)

REFERENCES

14
1. Penal Code Cap 87, S 203

2. Hatten, R. (2004). Criminal Law, P106. London: OUP

3. Penal Code. Cap 87, S. 201(a)

4. Kalulisika, S.E. (2005). General Principles of Criminal Law II, P2 Lusaka: ZAOU.

5. Lord Cole’s Institutes 41

6. Penal Code. Cap 87, S. 200

7. Penal Code, Cap 87, S. 209(1)

8. A (Children) [2001]2, WLR 480

9. Malcherek and Steel [1981]2, All ER 422, CA

10. Penal Code, Cap 87, S. 203

11. Martin, J. (2014), Criminal Law, P5, London, Routledge.

12. Penal Code, Cap 87, S. 200

13. Gibbins & Pocker [1918] 13 Cr. App R 134

14. Scheb, J.M. (2008), Criminal Law and Procedure. Pg 84. Belmark: Pre-Press PMG

15. Brathy V Attorney – General of Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386

16. Penal Code, Cap 87, S. 209

17. Ponlton [1832]5 C & P329

18. White [1910] 2KB 124

19. Dallonany [1847]2 CCx CC273

20. Pagett (1953) 76 Cr App R279 CA

21. Martin, J. (2014). Criminal Law, P33, London: Routledge

22. Sharpe [1857] 26 LJMC 47

23. Mohan [1975] 2 AII ET 193, (1975) 60 Cr ADP R272

24. Woollin [1995] UKHL 28, [1999] 1 Cr App R8

15
25. Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637; [2011] 1 WLR 1110

26. Storey, T (2004). Unlocking Criminal Law. Pg 321, London: Routledge

27. Martin, J. (2014). Criminal Law, P55. London: Routledge

28. English Homicide Act 1957, Section 55(4)

29. DPP V. Camplin [1978] AC 705

30. Zebedee [2012] EWCA Crim 322: [2014] 1 WLR 947

31. Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322: [2014] 1 WLR 947

32. Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193

33. Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396

34. R V Ahluwalia [1992] 4 AII ER 889

35. Fenton [1975] 61 Cr App R261

36. DPP V Newbury [1976] 62 Cr App R291

37. Bateman [1925] AII ER Rep 45, (1925) 19 Cr App R8

38. Adomako [1994] 3 AII ER 70, [1994] Crim

30. Lidar [2000] (Unreported).

16