Murder + Defences

• Where does the murder definition derive from

  17th century from Sir Edward coke
• First element of Murder AR

  unlawful killing via a voluntary act ( Hill V Baxter) or via omissions
• Second element of Murder AR

  of a reasonable creature in being

  AG's Reference No.3 of 1997 and Malcherek + Steel
• Third element of Murder AR

  within any country of the realm
• Fourth element of Murder AR

  under the kings peace
• MR of Murder

  Malice aforethought express or implied
• Malice aforethought express 


  intent to kill
• Malice aforethought implied

  intent to cause GBH (Vickers and Cunningham)
• Intent of murder

  Direct (Mohan) or oblique intent (Nedrick)
• What act is loss of control under

  S.54 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• What must D first raise in Loss of Control

  Sufficient evidence of their loss of control - Jewell
• Outline s.54 (1)(a) of loss of control

  Loss of self control must be a total loss of control

  Doesn't have to be sudden, there can be a time delay - Dawes

  but D must show they were out of control the entire time (Bailie)

  Longer the delay - less likely defence will succeed
• What does S.54 (1)(b) state

  There must be a qualifying trigger
• How many QT does s.55 state

  3
• Outline fear trigger

  Fear of serious violence against D or another identifiable person (Ward)
• Outline anger trigger

  things said or done which constitute circumstances of an extreme grave character and caused D to have a justifiable sense of feeling wronged

  In Hatter courts stressed importance of words extremely grave and justifiable are to be judged objectively

  A breakdown of relationship will not satisfy this
• 3rd QT

  combination of fear and anger
• Restrictions under s.55

  revenge, incitement and sexual infidelity

  Clinton - sexual infidelity can be used if there are other things said and done

  Dawes - stated that the cumulative impact of earlier events can be considered
• Outline s.54 (1)(c)

  Objective test - would someone of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in circumstances of D might have reacted in the same way.
• What isn't considered under s.54(1)(c)

  Bad temper - Mohammed

  Intoxication - Asmelash
• What can be considered under s.54(1)(c)

  sexual abuse, depression, epilepsy and infidelity
• What act is diminished responsibility under

  S.52 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• what is diminished responsibility

  where D suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning

  Bryne defined AMF as a state of mind so different to a human that a reasonable man would consider it abnormal
• Outline s.52 (1)(a) of DR

  AMF must arise from a recognised medical condition, several have been satisfied. D must prove medical evidence

  Depression + battered person syndrome (Ahluwalia)

  ADS (Wood)
• S.52 (1)(b)

  AMF must substantially impair D's ability to either understand nature of his conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self control

  Lloyd confirmed in Egon stated that substantial os more than trivial but not total + Golds stated that substantial means significant
• s.52(1)(c) of DR

  AMF provides an explanation to D's conduct by either being the cause of killing or could be a significant factor to the killing

  Intoxication must be disregarded (Gittens, Dietchmann, Tandy)

  Unless drinking is involuntary as D is suffering from ADS (Wood)
• Intro to involuntary manslaughter

  D has AR for murder but not MR

  2 types - unlawful act manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter

  if convicted D faces discretionary life sentence
• First element of UAM

  must be an unlawful act, act must be a crime (lamb), it cannot be a civil wrong (Franklin) and cannot be an omission (Lowe)
• Second element UAM

  Act must be considered dangerous on an objective basis

  Church defines this as 'an act which a reasonable and sober person can foresee as causing some harm not serious harm'

  JM&SM - no need to foresee specific type of harm

  Danger can be aimed at someone else (Larkin) or at property (Goodfellow)

  Watson - burglary can be dangerous if V's fragility can be seen

  Bristow & others - can be dangerous due to specific circumstances
• Final element of UAM

  D must have the MR for the unlawful act (Newbury and Jones) they need not foresee that its dangerous, just some harm

  Apply either Mohan or Nedrick
• GNM first element

  D must show a duty of care

  Adomako - principles of civil law

  Established in Donoughe V stevenson, refined in Caparo V Dickman and rerefined in Robbinson V CC of West Yorkshie

  In criminal law dofc can be established voluntarily (Stone and Dobinson), contractually (Singh) or through state of affairs (Evans)
• Second element on GNM

  D breaches their DofC. To breach is to fail below the standard of the reasonable man (Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks)

  In Evans the D's failed to seek medical help which a reasonable person would have done
• Final element of GNM

  D's conduct must be considered 'grossly negligent' Bateman defines this as conduct that goes beyond mere compensation...showing a disregard to the life and safety of others...conduct so bad its criminal

  Adomako stated that this is a question for the jury

  At the time of breach there must be a serious and obvious risk of death (Broughton), in Rose an obvious risk was defined as a clean and unambiguous one