Murder Essay Model Answer

• Prima facie, the defendant (state name) could be charged with the common law offence of murder of the victim (state name). Murder is defined by Lord Coke in the 17th century as the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King's peace with malice aforethought express or implied.
• Firstly, the actus reus (guilty mind) for murder must be proven. As regards the victim, the defendant committed the AR for murder when they (state what they did). This is an unlawful killing as it was not in self-defence (Martin), in prevention of a crime or authorised at a time of war.
• It must be committed by an act or an omission (failure to act; Stone and Dobinson) and here it was (APPLY).
• They were a reasonable person in being as they were not a foetus since they were wholly expelled from the mother and had an independent blood circulation (Att Gen Ref 2997) or brain-stem dead (Malcherek and Steel) and it took place under the King's Peace as the country was not in a declared course of war.
• Since these elements are satisfied it appears that the defendant would wholly satisfy the actus reus for murder.
• As murder is a result crime, causation must be established. Factual causation must be proven using the 'but for' test, that the defendant's actions caused the victim's death (White).
• Legal causation must also be proven. The defendant will be de minimis (Kimsey) if they are more than a minimal cause and the operating and substantial cause if they are the most to blame (Smith).
• Check for New Intervening Acts

  1. V's own actions (Roberts)
  2. V's self neglect (Wallace/Holland)
  3. Actions of a 3rd party (Pagett)
  4. Palpably wrong medical treatment (Jordan/Smith)
  5. Thin skull rule (Blaue)
• The mens rea (guilty mind) for murder would also need to be satisfied. As per Lord Coke's definition, the MR of murder is malice aforethought express or implied. Express malice aforethought can be established by proving either direct or oblique intent. A direct intention to kill (Mohan) is where the defendant wants to kill the victim.
• The second way to find express malice aforethought is to prove oblique intent. Oblique intention is where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about death or serious bodily harm as a virtual certainty and the d appreciated it from R v Woollin.
• Implied malice aforethought is when the defendant has an intention to cause GBH but the victim dies as a result of the injuries (R v Vickers). DPP v Smith 1961 ruled this to mean really serious harm.
• On that basis, the defendant has/has not the AR and MR of murder and would be guilty subject to any defence. If convicted of this indictable offence (tried in the Crown Court), would face up to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.