The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied
1 of 9
Actus Reus
Unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's Peace
Usually a Positive Voluntary Act eg. shooting or stabbing
Can be an omission if a duty exists and the mens rea is present eg in Gibbons and Procter
2 of 9
Unlawful Killing
Not a lawful killing
A lawful killing could be:
Self defence
A police shooting
An abortion
Execution
3 of 9
Living Person
Courts decided that:
Lifestarts when the baby is delivered - AG Reference 3 1994
End of life is when the brain stem dies - Malcherek
4 of 9
Under the Queen's Peace
5 of 9
Causation
Death must have been caused by the act of the Defendant
Factual causation from R v White - but for
Legal causation from R v Pagett - More than a minimal cause
Chain of causation must always remain intact so no intervening act must occur between the event and the death
Medical treatment usually doesnt break the chain - In Smith and Cheshire the original wound was still the operating cause of death
In R v Jordan - only if treatment was palpably wrong
VOA must be foreseeable as in Roberts and not daft as in Williams
Eggshell Skull as in Blaue
6 of 9
Mens Rea
Malice aforethought express or implied
Neither hatred nor premeditation are needed
Malice aforethought means intention to kill or cause really serious injury
7 of 9
Express and Implied
Express malice refers to the intention to kill
Implied malice refers to the intention to cause serious harm as in Cunningham
Either type of malice can exist with direct or oblique intention
8 of 9
Direct and Oblique
Direct intention - Killing is the D's aim, purpose and objective as in Mohen
Oblique intention - If killing was a virtually certain consequence of achieving some other purpose and the D saw it was virtually certain
Nedrick - D must have realised that his actions were virtually certain to lead to death or serious injury - from this the jury can infer whether he has intention
Woollin backed this up
Matthews and Allayne said that this was an evidential test and not substantive law
Comments
No comments have yet been made