Murder

• Part 1(a) - AO1) Murder - result crime, definition given by Judge Coke in 17th century. It is the 'unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being, under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, expressed or implied'.
• Part 1(b)AO1) Actus reus - is the 'unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being, under the King's peace'. D must commit an 'unlawful killing'. It can be committed through an act or omission . A failure to act will only be an offence if D was under a duty to act - R v Gibbins & Proctor.
• Part 1(c) - AO1) Death of V - must be unlawful, it would be unlawful if V's death occurred outside war and so was under the King's peace. D must not be acting in self defense - R v Beckford. Killing must take place within any country of the realm.
• Part 1 (d)- AO1) V must be - a 'reasonable person in being' - had an independent existence and circulation from their mother - Attorney General Reference No.3 of 1994. The V will be considered 'dead' if they have suffered irreversible brain stem injury - Malackerk and Steel.
• R v Beckford - the defendant police officer was told that a suspect was armed and dangerous. When that man ran out of a house towards him, the defendant shot him because he feared for his own life. The prosecution case was that the victim had been unarmed and thus presented no threat to the defendant. The self defense not allowed.
• R v Gibbins v Proctor - the father owed a duty of care to his child because of a special relationship, he failed to fulfil that duty when he starved the child to death.
• Attorney General's Reference No3. of 1944 - D stabbed his pregnant girlfriend when she was 22-24 weeks pregnant. 17 days after the incident the woman went into premature labour and gave birth to a live baby. The baby died 121 days later due to the premature birth. Held that he could not be convicted of murder or manslaughter since at the time of the attack the foetus was not in law classed as a human being and thus MR aimed at the mother couldn't be transferred to the foetus - would constitute a different offence.
• Malcherek v Steel - 2 separate appeals - together. In Malcherek, D stabbed his wife. In Steel, D was accused of sexually assaulting and beating a woman over the head with a stone. V's had been taken to hospital - placed on life support machines. The doctors in the respective cases later switched off the life support machines - V's weren't showing any activity in their brain stem. Held - switching off a life support machine didn't break the chain of causation. Where a doctor turns off a life support machine keeping a brain dead person alive, this will not constitute an unlawful killing.
• Part 2(a) - Causation - must be proven that D is the factual and legal cause of V’s death. Factual causation - ‘but for’ test - ‘but for’ the D’s act, the death would not have occurred - R v Pagett, where, ‘but’ for him using his girlfriend as a human shield she would not have died. Legal causation, provides that d must be more than a minimal cause to the end result - R v Kimsey, where D made more than a slight or trifling link to the end result. The thin skull rule must be considered  where D ‘must take the victim as he finds him’ - R v Blaue.
• R v Kimsey - The defendant and the victim (girlfriend) were involved in a high speed car chase when the girlfriend lost control of her car and was killed. The judge said as long as the defendant’s driving was believed to be more than a ‘slight or trifling’, the cause of her death was sufficient to form legal causation.

  Guilty.
• Blaue - D stabbed V, V declined a blood transfusion as she was a Jehovah's Witness · D was convicted of manslaughter . Held that D was still the cause of death when the V refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds - had to take her the V as he finds her.
• R v Pagett - d used his girlfriend as a human shield. His girlfriend wanted to break up with hime but he didn't want to. So he took her girlfriend to a flat to keep her hostage whilst the police were coming. The girlfriend died as she was shot by the police. D was the factual cause because but for using her as a human shield she would not have died. The police used self defense. Not at fault.
• R v Jordan - D stabbed V. V was taken to hospital where he was given anti-biotics after showing an allergic reaction to them. He was also given excessive amounts of intravenous liquids. He died of pneumonia 8 days after admission to hospital. At the time of death his wounds were starting to heal. Held: V died of the medical treatment and not the stab wound. D was not liable for his death. Doctor's act were independent and in itself so potent in causing death that D's acts were insignificant.
•  R v Pagett - where it was reasonably foreseeable that the police officers will fire back when acting in self-defence. 3rd parties acts - reasonable foreseeable.
• In Roberts 1971 - the chain was not broken when V jumped out of a car to avoid sexual advances. It was reasonably foreseeable that she would do it. V's own acts - reasonably foreseeable.
• Part 1) Mens rea - malice aforethought, express or implied’. Express malice aforethought means intention to kill. Implied malice aforethought means intention to cause GBH as in Vickers where D intending to cause GBH cannot guarantee that death will not follow. 
• Part 2) Intention can be either direct or oblique. Direct intention is where the D desires the resulting death, or the purpose of his acts are to kill - Mohan - D ‘did everything in his power to bring about the prohibited consequence’. Oblique intention is where D may not foresee the outcome, but in acting the way he did, the outcome is virtually certain and D appreciates this - R v Woolin . In MATTHEWS & ALLEYNE, foresight of consequences is evidence of intention, which the jury can rely on to find D guilty of murder. 
• Vickers - MR - where D intending to cause GBH cannot guarantee that death will not follow. A burglar struck the owner of a shop and the victim eventually died from shock due to general injuries. It was held that malice aforethought consists of either an intention to kill or an intention to cause GBH, even in the absence of knowledge or belief that life would be endangered. An attacker bent on causing GBH cannot guarantee that death will not follow.
• Mohan - MR - Direct intention - the D ‘did everything in his power to bring about the prohibited consequence’, when he accelerated fast towards the victim (police).
• R v Woolin - MR - oblique intention - where serious harm to the baby was a virtual certainty of D’s action. D threw the baby into the wall. The baby died.
•  MATTHEWS & ALLEYNE - MR - foresight of consequences is evidence of intention, which the jury can rely on to find D guilty of murder. An 18 year old A- level student had been robbed and Ds threw the victim into a river, who drowned and died. Ds argued although they knew the victim could not swim, they did not intend for the victim to die. The two appellants appealed against their conviction for murder on the basis that the jury had been misdirected on the law of intent.
• If relevant - transferred malice - the mens rea can be transferred from the intended V to the actual V, providing that the actus reus and mens rea coincide. This can be seen in the case of Latimer .
• Latimer - transferred malice - where the D hit a lady with a belt instead of the intended V. Latimer was guilty of an assault against the woman even though he had not intended to hit her.
• Coincidence Rule - The actus reus and mens rea of murder must occur at the same time. However, sometimes they do not. If AR came first and the mens rea is formed later, the court uses the 'continuing act principle' - where the AR can be seen as one continuous act , continuing until the MR is developed - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1968 . (MPC)
• Coincidence rule - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1968 - D committed the actus reus when he drove onto the policeman's foot but formed the mens rea later when he refused to move his car. It was held that as the actus reus was still continuing, therefore the actus reus and mens rea coincided.
• Coincidence rule - if MR comes first and the actus reus is committed later, the court uses the 'one transaction principle' - where the AR is seen as a series of connected acts with the MR being present through the whole series - Thabo Meli 1954 .
• Thabo Meli 1954 - coincidence rule - the D's formed the mens rea of murder when beating up the V but the actus reus was committed later when the body was left exposed after being thrown off a cliff. It was held that it was all part of a series of connected acts, therefore the actus reus and mens rea coincided as it was treated as one transaction.
• Causation - self neglect - r v dear - d was still liable as the injuries on the deceased were still a significant and operative cause of death. (Similar to thin skull rule)
• Causation - intervening acts - medical negligence - rarely break the chain - if the act is independent of the D’s acts and in itself so potent in causing death that D’s acts are insignificant - r v Jordan or r v cheshire - where d’s conduct was still significant cause of death - when applying start with ‘the medical treatment was ‘palpably wrong’ as it is so potent …. so chain of causation is broken .
• Causation - intervening acts - V’s own acts may break the chain if their action is regarded as daft so unreasonable or unexpected - r v Roberts. D’s conduct is something a reasonable and responsible man would have foreseen- objective - taking into account the nature of the attack - Per Stuart - Smith LJ in Williams and Davis
• If V is a foetus- no mens rea because the foetus is not considered to be a person - no legal standing
• Unlawful- application- not acting in military capacity under Kings peace - D killed within UK