MURDER AND VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

Murder inrelation to voluntary m/s

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Emma
  • Created on: 06-01-10 10:06

MURDER; MENS REA

MENS REA:

To be guilty of murder, accused must either intend to cause the death of their Victim, or they must intend to cause serious harm (GBH) accordingly, the mens rea of murder is intention which is described as malice aforethought.

Court established in Vickers and confirmed in Cunningham that intention in murder can take two forms and either can make D guilty of murder, which means you can be guilty of murder even though you did not intend to kill.

1. Express malice aforethought (intention to kill)

2. Implied malice aforethought (intention to cause GBH)

1 of 27

MURDER; MENS REA #2.

When establishing malice aforethought, D could have either direct or oblique intention.

a) Direct intention - Is D’s aim or purpose

b) Oblique intention – Not necessarily what D desires, but what he forsee will almost certainly happen. Did D forsee that death or GBH would almost certainly occur.

D will then receive a mandatory life sentence, if convicted of murder.

2 of 27

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

2 general categories of manslaughter; Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is a killing that would normally amount to murder because D has killed a person with malice aforethought. However, if D can prove one of three partial defences, the conviction may be reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Set out in The Homicide Act 1957-

· S.2 Diminished Responsibility

· S.3 Provocation

· S.4 Suicide Pact

3 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBLITY;

1. ABNORMALITY OF MIND

– defined as a state of mind

a reasonable man would find abnormal.

In R v Byrne Lord Parker stated that an abnormality of mind included ‘a lack of ability to form a rational judgement or to exercise the necessary willpower to control one’s acts’

4 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBLITY #2.

1. CAUSED BY AN ARRESTED OR RETARDED DEVELOPTMENT OF THE MIND, OR AN INHERENT CAUSE OR DISEASE OR INJURY

– abnormality must be cause by some inherent malfunctioning of the mind, and not by external factors.

5 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY #3.

1. SUBSTANITIALLY IMPAIR D’S RESPONSIBILITY

– Held in Lloyd that impairment need not be total, but it must be more than trivial and there should be medical evidence to support.

6 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY + INTOXICATION

Intoxication Only – in Di Duca the CA held that the immediate effects of taking alcohol or drugs was not an injury, even if it did have an effect on the brain. The court confirmed that the transient state of intoxication was not an abnormality of mind.

7 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY + INTOXICATION #

Intoxication and a pre-existing abnormality of mind – Decision in Dietschmann stated that the abnormality of mind did not need to be the sole cause of D’s acts in committing the killing, and even if D would not have killed if he had not been drinking, the causative effect of the drink did not necessarily prevent the abnormality of mind from substantially impairing mental responsibility.

8 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY + INTOXICATION #

Intoxication which has caused brain damage – Courts established in Tandy if brain has been damaged through alcoholism, injury or disease will be allowed under s.2(1) Diminished Responsibility.

9 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY + INTOXICATION #

Intoxication due to addiction/dependency – Following the case of Wood, was stated that Jury must decide which of D’s drinks were involuntary and only consider the effects of those, while ignoring any consumption of alcohol that is considered voluntarily.

10 of 27

PROVOCATION;

PROVOCATION:

Up to judge to decide whether there is enough evidence for defence of provocation. D must obtain permission before his lawyer may argue D was provoked. To avoid later appeal, accused is usually given benefit of doubt, e.g. Doughty – 19 day old baby crying was enough to be provoked.

3 elements;

11 of 27

MURDER; MENS REA #2.

When establishing malice aforethought, D could have either direct or oblique intention.

a) Direct intention - Is D’s aim or purpose

b) Oblique intention – Not necessarily what D desires, but what he forsee will almost certainly happen. Did D forsee that death or GBH would almost certainly occur.

D will then receive a mandatory life sentence, if convicted of murder.

12 of 27

PROVOCATION #2.

1. D SUFFERED A SUDDEN AND TEMPORARY LOSS OF SELF CONTROL

– Must be sudden and temporary to distinguish between genuinely uncontrolled and calculated acts of revenge.

In the case of Duffy, it was said defence could be used when the provoking act had caused ‘a sudden and temporary loss of self-control rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her, for the moment, not master of his mind’

To establish sudden and temporary, we look at time lapse. Ibrams and Gregory (no evidence of Prov, 5 day gap) Longer time lapse = less likely Provocation will succeed. Slow burn = Ahluwalia.

13 of 27

MURDER; MENS REA

MENS REA:

To be guilty of murder, accused must either intend to cause the death of their Victim, or they must intend to cause serious harm (GBH) accordingly, the mens rea of murder is intention which is described as malice aforethought.

Court established in Vickers and confirmed in Cunningham that intention in murder can take two forms and either can make D guilty of murder, which means you can be guilty of murder even though you did not intend to kill.

1. Express malice aforethought (intention to kill)

2. Implied malice aforethought (intention to cause GBH)

14 of 27

MURDER; MENS REA #2.

When establishing malice aforethought, D could have either direct or oblique intention.

a) Direct intention - Is D’s aim or purpose

b) Oblique intention – Not necessarily what D desires, but what he forsee will almost certainly happen. Did D forsee that death or GBH would almost certainly occur.

D will then receive a mandatory life sentence, if convicted of murder.

15 of 27

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

2 general categories of manslaughter; Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is a killing that would normally amount to murder because D has killed a person with malice aforethought. However, if D can prove one of three partial defences, the conviction may be reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Set out in The Homicide Act 1957-

· S.2 Diminished Responsibility

· S.3 Provocation

· S.4 Suicide Pact

16 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBLITY;

1. ABNORMALITY OF MIND

– defined as a state of mind

a reasonable man would find abnormal.

In R v Byrne Lord Parker stated that an abnormality of mind included ‘a lack of ability to form a rational judgement or to exercise the necessary willpower to control one’s acts’

17 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBLITY #2.

1. CAUSED BY AN ARRESTED OR RETARDED DEVELOPTMENT OF THE MIND, OR AN INHERENT CAUSE OR DISEASE OR INJURY

– abnormality must be cause by some inherent malfunctioning of the mind, and not by external factors.

18 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY #3.

1. SUBSTANITIALLY IMPAIR D’S RESPONSIBILITY

– Held in Lloyd that impairment need not be total, but it must be more than trivial and there should be medical evidence to support.

19 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY + INTOXICATION

Intoxication Only – in Di Duca the CA held that the immediate effects of taking alcohol or drugs was not an injury, even if it did have an effect on the brain. The court confirmed that the transient state of intoxication was not an abnormality of mind.

20 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY + INTOXICATION #

Intoxication and a pre-existing abnormality of mind – Decision in Dietschmann stated that the abnormality of mind did not need to be the sole cause of D’s acts in committing the killing, and even if D would not have killed if he had not been drinking, the causative effect of the drink did not necessarily prevent the abnormality of mind from substantially impairing mental responsibility.

21 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY + INTOXICATION #

Intoxication which has caused brain damage – Courts established in Tandy if brain has been damaged through alcoholism, injury or disease will be allowed under s.2(1) Diminished Responsibility.

22 of 27

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY + INTOXICATION #

Intoxication due to addiction/dependency – Following the case of Wood, was stated that Jury must decide which of D’s drinks were involuntary and only consider the effects of those, while ignoring any consumption of alcohol that is considered voluntarily.

23 of 27

PROVOCATION;

PROVOCATION:

Up to judge to decide whether there is enough evidence for defence of provocation. D must obtain permission before his lawyer may argue D was provoked. To avoid later appeal, accused is usually given benefit of doubt, e.g. Doughty – 19 day old baby crying was enough to be provoked.

3 elements;

24 of 27

PROVOCATION #1.

1. EVIDENCE THAT D WAS PROVOKED –

In R V Acott it was held that there must be specific evidence that D was provoked, not just speculation. Includes things said or things done. Provocation can but put forward even if self-induced (Johnson)

25 of 27

PROVOCATION #2.

1. D SUFFERED A SUDDEN AND TEMPORARY LOSS OF SELF CONTROL

– Must be sudden and temporary to distinguish between genuinely uncontrolled and calculated acts of revenge.

In the case of Duffy, it was said defence could be used when the provoking act had caused ‘a sudden and temporary loss of self-control rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her, for the moment, not master of his mind’

To establish sudden and temporary, we look at time lapse. Ibrams and Gregory (no evidence of Prov, 5 day gap) Longer time lapse = less likely Provocation will succeed. Slow burn = Ahluwalia.

26 of 27

1. REASONABLE MAN MIGHT HAVE ACTED IN THE SAME WAY.

Objective test, up to jury to decide whether a reasonable man might have acted in the same way. In A-G for Jersey V Holley, the question stands as ‘Would the reasonable man who is the same age and sex as D, with ordinary powers of self control, have acted in the same way.’

27 of 27

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »