Murder

• Definiton of Murder


  Common law offence. Defined by Lord Coke as an unlawful killing of a reasonable person under the queen's peace with malice aforethought
• Unlawful killing

  • The defendant must have caused the death without legal permission.
  • The killing can come from an act or omission - (R v Stone and Dobinson)
  • Legal permission - case of RE A
• Re A


  Regarding the separation of conjoined twins, doctors were granted legal permission to operate in order to separate the twins. Without this operation, both twins would certainly have died. The doctors performed the operation, despite knowing that it would cause the death of the weaker twin. They had legal permission to do so and therefore could not be found guilty of murder.
• R v Stone and Dobinson

  Where the defendants had agreed to look after Stone’s ill sister. They failed to provide basic care and she died as a result. Their failure to act, an omission, was given as the actus reus of the offence of murder.
• Reasonable Person


  The victim must be a human, and cannot be a foetus or braindead. - (Attorney General’s Reference No.3 of 1994)

  (R v Malcherek and Steel)
• R v Malcherek and Steel


  The victim’s life-support machine was switched off after the doctors had established that the death of the brain-stem. The defendant appealed, but was unsuccessful because the doctor’s actions in switching off the life-support did not break the initial chain of causation.
• Attorney General’s Reference No.3 of 1994


  Where the defendant attacked a pregnant woman, causing her to prematurely give birth two weeks later. The premature baby died as a result of the early birth, however, the House of Lords declared the defendant not guilty of murder because at the time of the attack on the mother, the baby was not yet independent of the mother and was therefore not regarded by the court as a reasonable person in being.
• Queens Peace


  The defendant cannot be found guilty if they kill an enemy in war. - R v Page
• Malice Aforethought

  • Means the intention to cause harm.
  • The intention can either be express or implied.
• Express intent


  The intention to cause death.
• Implied intent


  The intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
• R v Moloney


  The defendant shot his step-father, killing him. At trial, it was argued that the defendant didn’t think the gun was pointed at his step-father, with whom he enjoyed a good relationship.
• How can intent be inferred

  Lord Bridge decided that intention could only be inferred if.

  1. death or serious injury was a natural consequence of the voluntary act.
  2. the defendant foresaw that death would happen as a natural consequence of their act.

  • The jury can infer intent as they see fit, therefore Molney was found guilty of manslaughter as intent was not established.
  • As long as intent to cause GBH is established, a murder conviction can follow. - R v Vickers
• R v Nedrick


  Argued that if death was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions and if the defendant was aware of this at the time of the killing, then they should be convicted.
• R v Vickers


  Here it was established that the defendant intentionally caused Grievous Bodily Harm to his victim after being discovered burgling a sweet shop. The victim died from her injuries and the defendant was convicted of murder, despite claiming that it was never their intention to kill. They were aware, however, of the severity of the injuries they had inflicted on their elderly and vulnerable victim. This allowed the jury to infer intention in order to convict the defendant.
• 1. Within your actus reus section of your answer, there is often a causation issue to be explored.
  2. Within the mens rea section of your answer, there is often an issue regarding the defendant’s foresight of consequences.
• What case is R v Vickers

  The Sweet shop one.
• What case is R v Nedrick

  The Virtually certain one
• What case is R v Maloney

  Didn't know the gun was pointed at stepfather
• What case is Attorney Generals Refrence No.3 of 1994

  The premature child one relating to a reasonable person.
• What case is R v Malcharek and Steel

  The life support one
• What case is R v Stone and dobington.

  The case where the defendants failed to take care of stone.
• What case is Re a

  The conjoined twins one