Fatal Offences

• Murder : "the killing of a human being under the King's Peace with malice aforethought" - Sir Edward Coke
• Involuntary Manslaughter : "the killing of another human being under the King's Peace without malice aforethought"
• Actus Reus of murder:

  • R v Page 1954: killing an enemy at war is not murder unless, they have surrendered or are vulnerable
  • Rance/Attorney Generals Reference 3 of 1994: a foetus is not considered a human being and must be expelled (although not free from the umbilical cord) before being considered as a human being.
  • Martin: not unlawful if was an act of self-defence
  • ReA : doctors operating when a patient dies is not unlawful
  • R v Malcherek & Steel : turning off of life support is only murder if for non medical reasons which are decided by the courts
• Mens Rea of Murder: S8 Criminal Justice Act 1967

  • Expressed malice aforethought (intention to kill) via Direct Intention (Mohan)
  • Expressed malice aforethought (intention to kill) via Oblique Intention (Cunningham 1975)
  • Implied malice aforethought (intention to cause GBH) via Direct Intention (Mohan)
  • Implied malice aforethought (intention to cause GBH) via oblique intention (Cunningham 1975)
• Diminished Responsibility: S52 Coroner's Justice Act 2009

  • Abnormality of mental functioning - Byrne 1960: "a state of mind that the reasonable man would find abnormal"
  • Caused by a recognised medical condition - outlined by WHO
  • Substantially impairs D's ability to... - Lloyd 1967: "impairment need not be total, but more than trivial"
  • understand the nature of his conduct
  • form a rational judgement
  • exercise self-control
  • Provides and explanation for D's conduct - R v King 2016
• D's acts or omissions resulted from D's loss of self-control.
• Loss of self-control can be caused by a qualifying trigger.
• D's fear of violence is a subjective test.
• Things done or said can have an extremely grave character.
• A person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the same circumstances, is a reasonable standard to be applied.
• Other characteristics are not taken into account, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and mental disability.
• The same circumstances should be considered when comparing D to a hypothetical person of similar characteristics.
• D's actions should be considered in the same way as a person of same age and sex in the same circumstances
• Unlawful Act Manslaughter:

  • Actus Reus:
  • Unlawful act:
  • Lamb 1967: "if the victim had not died would it still be a crime?"
  • R v Lowe 1973: an omission is not sufficient
• Unlawful Act Manslaughter:

  • Actus Reus:
  • Unlawful act:
  • Lamb 1967: "if the victim had not died would it still be a crime?"
  • R v Lowe 1973: an omission is not sufficient
  • Dangerous Act:
  • Larkin 1943: "risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm"
  • Caused the death
  • DPP v Newbury & Jones 1977
  • Cato 1976 : if D also injects drug into V there is no break in chain of causation
  • Dalby/Kennedy: if V injects themselves even when supplied by D there is a break in causation
  • Mens Rea : is the mens rea required for the crime committed in the unlawful act
• Gross Negligence Manslaughter: Actus Reus: Duty of Care: Caparo v Dickman: based on ordinary principles of negligence
• Miller: a person is only liable if they have a duty to act
• Breach of Duty: Adomako 1994: Bolam test - compare D with the standard of a reasonable competent professional or person
• Miller: breached by a failure to act where there is a duty to act
• Causation: (in fact and in law)
• Mens Rea: Bateman 1925: so such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount o a crime
• Adomako 1994: conduct so bad in all circumstances as to amount to a criminal act/omission
• Intoxication & Diminished Responsibility:

  • Duca 1959 : intoxication alone is not diminished responsibility
  • Dietschmann 2003 : disregarding the intoxication is the pre-existing abnormality enough to impair his mental responsibility?
  • Tandy 1989: brain damaged caused by intoxication will be allowed under s2 (1) diminished responsibility
  • Wood 2008: in case of addiction the jury must decide which of his drinks were involuntary and only consider the side effects of those drinks
• Loss of control: S54-55 coroners justice act