Murder Summary
- Created by: susantatex1
- Created on: 03-04-16 14:50
View mindmap
- Murder
- AR/MR
- The AR of murder is: The unlawful killing of another human being.
- Omissions as AR
- The normal rule that an omission cannot be the AR of murder however there are certain exceptions.
- A contractual duty of care is owed: case of Pittwood
- A parental duty of care is owed: case of Gibbons & Proctor
- A voluntary duty of care is owed: case of Stone & Dobinson
- A duty arises where the defendant set in motion a chain of events: case of Miller
- The normal rule that an omission cannot be the AR of murder however there are certain exceptions.
- The phrase 'human being' does not cover an unborn foetus: case Attorney Generals Reference No. 3 of 1994
- If a person is deaed 'brain dead' doctors are able to switch off life support and not be prosecuted; case of Malcherek
- Omissions as AR
- The Mens Rea of murder in malice aforethought or intent to cause serious harm.
- Express malice aforethought means the D had direct intent to kill
- Implied malice aforethought in the intention to cause GBH: this is displayed in the case of Vickers.
- This was also confirmed in the case of Cunningham
- Foresight of consequencs
- Oblique intent is where the defendants intention was not to directly cause death.
- The leading case for oblique intention is Woollin. From this case the jury could infer intention.
- Oblique intent is where the defendants intention was not to directly cause death.
- The case of Matthews and Alleyne has left the issue of intentiom even more blurred.
- The COA held that Woollin only lays down a rule that evidence of foresight of consequences is not inention
- Cases: Maloney > Hancock & Shackland > Nedrick > Woollin > Matthews & Alleyne
- The AR of murder is: The unlawful killing of another human being.
- Causation
- Legal Cause
- Operating and substantial rule is used to find the legal casuse of death
- The defendants must be more than 'minimal' but it need not be the substantial cause.
- Intervening Acts can break the chain of causation
- Medical Treatment
- The medical treatment must be so independent from the defendants acts it must cause death itself, this is shown by the cases of Smith, Cheshire and Jordan
- Victims Own Acts
- If the D causes the V to act in a forseeable way then he is liable for any injury: case of Roberts
- If the V's acts were not foreseeable/ unreasonable then it will break the chain of causation; case of Willaims
- A natural but unpredictable event
- Medical Treatment
- Factual Cause
- But for test, established in the cases of Pagget & White
- The 'Thin Skull Rule' was established in the case of Blaue. This means the defendant must take the victim as they find them.
- Legal Cause
- Transferred Malice
- The principles of transferred malice apply are the same when applied to murder.
- The cases of Latimer and Mitchell display how transferred malice can happen within the law
- Trransferred malice must be person to person not person to object as displayed by the case of Pembliton
- The case of Gnango displays the doctrine of transferred malice within refernce to murder
- AR/MR
- Untitled
Comments
No comments have yet been made