murder

• murder actus reus

  unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the kings peace
• R v Poulton

  unborn child is not considered a reasonable person in being
• factual causation

  • R v White
  • but for d's actions the death wouldn't have occurred
• legal causation

  • R v Dalloway
  • did the defendants culpable actions cause the death
  • if there are several causes the defendant can still be guilty of murder if they are the operating and substantial cause unless break in chain ( R v Benge)
• novus actus intervenies

  new act from the victim, third party or god that breaks the chain of causation

  R v Pagget
• murder mens rea

  with malice aforethought - means inetention to kill or cause GBH
• grevious bodily harm


  defined as serious or really serious harm

  R v Saunders

  DPP v Smith
• intention


  direct aim or purpose ( R v Moloney)
• oblique intention for murder

  -only possible for murder, cannot be used for offences where there is alternative mens rea for recklessness

  -was death or serious injury virtual certainy of D's action and did D appreciate this to be the case (r v woolin)
• 2 defences only available to murder

  -loss of control

  -diminished responsibility
• where is loss of control defence found

  ss. 54-55 coroner's and justice act 2009
• what is mean by partial defence for murder

  if they are raised successfully, D is liable for voluntary manslaughter rather than murder
• 3 requirements for loss of control

  1.D's acts or ommisions to the killing resulted from D;s loss of self conrtol (s.54(1)(a) CJA

  2.The loss of self control had a qualifying trigger (s.54(1)(b) CJA

  3.A person of D's sex and age with normal toleramce and in the same circumstances would have acted the same or similar (s.43(1)(c) CJA
• R v Richens LOC

  loss of control need not be a complete loss of control
• R v Ahuliwaila LOC

  loss of control need not be sudden

  although greater time between qualifying trigger and LOC the less likely for defence to succeed
• possible qualifying triggers

  a)D feared serious violence from V against D or another (s.55(3))

  (R v Martin)

  b)things said or done that constituted extremely grave character (s.55(4)(a))

  which caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (s.55(4)(b))

  c) any combination of the above (s.55(5))
• can LOC defence be available if intoxicated

  no - defence is unavailable if D was drunk or high

  R v Morhall

  R v Clinton
• where is diminished responsibility defence found

  ss.2(1)-(2) homicide act 1957

  R v Sutcliffe
• 4 requirements for diminished responsibility

  1.was D suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning

  2.which arose from a recognised medical condition

  3.which substantally impaired the defendants ability to do certain things