Murder
- Created by: Hayley Petts
- Created on: 22-05-14 18:25
View mindmap
- Murder
- Definition
- Lord Coke - 17th century
- the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the Queen's Peace with malice aforethought express or implied
- Lord Coke - 17th century
- Actus reus
- killing must be unlawful
- can be an act or an omission
- Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
- murder is a result crime so chain of causation must be intact
- what is a reasonable creature in being ?
- homicide offence cannot be charged in respect of killing a foetus
- child has to have an 'existence independent of the mother' for it to be considered a creature in being
- umbilical chord does not need to be cut
- child has to have an 'existence independent of the mother' for it to be considered a creature in being
- Attorney-General Reference (No of 3 of 1994) (1997)
- HL - where foetus is injured and the child is born alive but dies afterwards due to injuries
- can be actus reus of murder
- HL - where foetus is injured and the child is born alive but dies afterwards due to injuries
- it is not certain whether a person who is 'brain-dead- would be considered as a 'reasonable creature in being'
- Malcherek (1981) - doctors were allowed to turn off life support machine
- Year and a day rule - death must occur within a year and one day of attack
- abolished by Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
- if person in coma and died year and a day later D could not be charged
- abolished by Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
- Re A (conjoined twins) (2000)
- CA held separation of twins was lawful even though one would die
- homicide offence cannot be charged in respect of killing a foetus
- Unlawful force
- Beckford (1988) - D must be judged on facts he genuinely believed them to be even if D was mistaken about true facts
- Criminal Justice + Immigration Act 2008
- difficult to weigh up exactly how much force needed in pressure situation, so assessed on what D honesty and instinctively thought was reasonable
- Clegg (1995) - evidence showed car had gone past Clegg at time of last shot
- self-defence could not be used as he was no longer in danger - force was excessive
- Mens rea
- D must have specific intent to kill or cause GBH and death results
- decided by Vickers (1957) and confirmed by Cunningham (1981)
- DPP v Smith (1961) - HL held that GBH meant 'really serious harm'
- problems created when D has oblique intent
- D does not have mens rea unless he foresaw that he would also cause death or serious injury
- foresight of consequence
- Moloney (1985) - shot and killed step father in drunken challenge
- foresight of consequence is only evidence from which intention may be inferred
- Nedrick (1986) - D poured paraffin through letter box
- CA said jury should ask themselves:
- a) how probable was the consequence which resulted from D's voluntary act?
- b) Did D foresee the consequence?
- Jury should also be directed
- not entitled to infer necessary intention unless they feel virtually certain death or serious injury would have resulted and D appreciated this
- CA said jury should ask themselves:
- Woollin (1998)
- approved of direction in Nedrick
- disproved of the use of the two questions
- Law lords said that 'substantial risk' was not correct test
- Law lords said word 'find' should be used rather than 'infer'
- Moloney (1985) - shot and killed step father in drunken challenge
- foresight of consequence
- D does not have mens rea unless he foresaw that he would also cause death or serious injury
- D must have specific intent to kill or cause GBH and death results
- Definition
Comments
No comments have yet been made