Murder

• Murder was defined in 1797 by Sir Edward Coke as: 


  the unlawful killing of any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the kings peace with malice aforethought
• Criticisms of definition

  • outdated and archaic terminology making it harder to understand
  • not modernised
  • includes an actus reus and mens rea making it easier for courts to apply
• Actus Reus of murder

  the unlawful killing of a creature in rerum natura under Ks peace.

  • R v Enoch - abortion is not murder as it was held that 'rerum natura' means living independently.
  • under kings peace protects soldiers when fighting in war so they are not convicted of murder
• causation 


  the Ds actions caused the death of the victim.

  • fair as it ensures punishment for wrong doings.
  • fair as it holds the defendant accountable for their actions.
• there must be a direct link between the conduct of the defendant and the consequences. 


  Chain of Causation. the action must be legal cause, factual cause and have no intervening act.
• Factual Causation - But for test 


  But for the Ds actions, the death would not have occurred.

  R v White 1910 - poisoned mother, but had died from an unrelated heart attack, D was charged with attempted murder as COD was unrelated.

  R v Broughton 2020
• R v Broughton 2020

  D gave gf a drug which resulted in a bad reaction, did not get medical attention till the following morning, she had died later that morning. D was not held liable as she had a 90% of survival rate whereas the standard is 100% - maintains the standards, upholds
• legal causation - de minimis rule 


  the defendants actions must be more than minimal cause of the death but not substantial.

  R v Kimsey 1996 held - more than a slight or trifiling link'

  • easier for jury to interpret?
• no Novus actus interveniens 


  an interviening act will break the chain in causation. this could be an act of a third party, an act of the victim, or an act of mother nature.

  • fair as the defendant will not be held accountable for situations they had no influence in
• Act of the victim

  R v Blaue 1975 - Stabbed his wife because she would not have sex with him, she needed a blood transfusion however, did not as she was a Jehovah's Witness

  Thin Skull Rule - take your victims how you find them.
• third party act 


  medical professionals rarely break the chain of causation

  treatment must be so independent of the defendants actions it has a greater consequence.

  • some kind of deference - could create the fear to treat people
• third party act - Cheshire 1993 


  doctors had attempted to save victims lives and would not have required treatment if it was not from the defendants actions.
• Jordan 1956


  medical treatment was 'palpably wrong'
• trifling link move is vague and subjective
• it is not fair of the victim refuses medical treatment, however if it is due to personal characteristics there cannot be any sense of victim blaming.
• mens rea for murder

  intent to kill or cause GBH
• Intent - Mohan 1975 


  a decision to bring about a desired consequence

  • complex definition for the jury ?
• intent can be direct or oblique

  • is indirect/oblique intent fair?
• direct intent

  the defendant quite obviously brings about the desired intent - clear

  • it shows control over the situation whereas indirect may only be an accident.
• indirect intent 


  the defendant may not have the desire for the consequence of their actions meaning it is down to the jury to decide in virtual certainty.
• foresight of consequence 


  there has been an issue around whether or not the defendant fore sought the consequence.
• s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967

  Natural and probable consequence - has left it for the jury to decide
• S8 CJA 1967


  the jury may infer if the consequence was natural and probable

  • infer is vague and has not been defined, more confusion amongst the jury
• Hyam v DPP 1975

  the result must be highly probable.

  poured petrol through ex's letterbox killing two young children and was tried for murder. appeal was refused and was convicted for murder.
• R v Maloney 1985

  • natural consequence of action was the intent

  first to fire a shotgun contest where the defendant had shot and killed his stepfather, was charged with murder.
• Hancock v Shankland 1986

  'degree of probability' was the standard in this case.
• Nedrick is the current test used in finding indirect intent.

  virtual certainty - confirmed in woollin 1998
• the area of law may have confused the jury as over the years there has been many changes in the legislation, arguably making previous case law inconsistent.
• transferred malice 


  intended to harm somebody but ended up harming the wrong person

  • latimer 1886
• must have the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

  • fair to defendant as it ensures the defendant had full control and full intent for their actions.