Fatal offences

• Murder


  Defined by Lord Coke:

  
  

  "The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King's Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied"
• Actus reus of murder

  "The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King's Peace"

  
  

  - the defendant killed

  - a reasonable creature in being

  - under the King's Peace

  - unlawfully
• Defendant killed'

  Can be committed by an act or omission, but must cause the death of the victim
• R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)


  Murder can be committed by omission

  
  

  (Ds starved child)
• Causation in fact and law

  D must have caused the death in fact ("But for" test), and in law ("operating and substantial cause" - R v Cheshire)
• Reasonable creature in being'

  A human being
• Exceptions to 'reasonable creature in being'

  1. Foetus

  2. 'Brain-dead
• AG's Ref (No 3 of 1994)

  Foetus is not a reasonable creature in being

  
  

  (D stabbed pregnant girlfriend, resulting in death of the baby, guilty of manslaughter, not murder)
• R v Malcherek (1981)


  Doctors can switch off life support machines without being held criminally liable
• King's Peace'

  The killing of an enemy in the course of war is not murder
• Unlawful'

  Killing in self-defence or defence of another, or in the prevention of crime (with reasonable force) is not unlawful)
• Mens rea of murder

  'Malice aforethought, express or implied'

  
  

  Express malice aforethought or Implied malice aforethought
• Express malice aforethought


  Intention to kill
• Implied malice aforethought


  Intention to cause grievous bodily harm
• R v Vickers (1957)


  D can be guilty of murder despite not having the intention to commit murder where there is implied malice aforethought

  
  

  (D broke into cellar of a local sweet shop and hit the shopkeeper multiple times, leading to her death)
• R v Cunningham (1981)


  Intention to cause grievous bodily harm was sufficient for mens rea of murder
• what statute established loss of control?

  Section 54 Coroner's + justice act 2009
• which case defines loss of control?

  R v Jewell
• How does Jewell define loss of control?

  the defendant must have lost his ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered or lost normal powers of reasoning
• what must be present for D to claim loss of control?

  - qualifying trigger

  - reasonable man test
• what are qualifying triggers? cases


  anything said or done that

  - makes d fear violence (Martin)

  - gives d justifiable sense of being wronged (Zebedee)
• what is not a qualifying trigger? case

  - revenge (Ibrams + Gregory)

  - inciting

  - sexual infelicity (Holley)
• what is the question put to the jury as the reasonable man test?

  would a person of the same sex and age as the d with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint have acted in the same way in similar circumstances?
• what circumstances are not considered when questioning self restraint or tolerance?

  personal characteristics such as a short temper
• which statute established diminished responsibility?

  s52 coroners + justice act 2009
• how does this statute define diminished responsibility?

  a person who kills or is party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if d was suffering an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised medical condition which substantially impaired d's ability and provides an explanation for d's acts or omissions
• what is an abnormality of mental functioning? case

  state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal

  - R v Byrne
• what is included in recognised medical conditions? cases

  - alcholosim (Tandy)

  - paranoid personality disorder (Martin)

  - chronic depression (Gittens)

  - battered woman syndrome (Ahluwalia)
• when is D's abilities impaired?

  when they are unable to do one of these:

  - understand the nature of his conduct

  - form a rational judgement

  - exercise self control
• what did the case of Osborne decide?

  - d and friends smoking and drinking

  - attack and racially abuse v - killed

  - d stated he was coerced into attack and is easily influenced

  - stated he had ADHD which contributed to his impairment

  - decided that ADHD and autism are recognised medical conditions
• what are the considerations of intoxication in diminished responsibility? cases

  1. whether d was intoxicated involuntarily, if so were they substantially impaired? TANDY

  2. was d suffering from a recognised medical condition and became intoxicated voluntarily, if so would need to decide whether d would have killed regardless of intoxication? GITTENS
• Unlawful Act Manslaughter

  Must be an unlawful act, must be dangerous, must cause the death, the defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act
• Unlawful act cases

  Arson - R v Goodfellow

  Criminal damage - R v newbury and jones

  Assault - R v mitchell
• D must cause the victim's death

  R v Kennedy
• Act must be dangerous

  Objective test established in R v Church
• Unlawful act

  Can't be an omission - R v Lowe
• The defendant must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act

  R v Lamb - Didn't have the mens rea so wasn't guilty of unlawful act manslauter
• Gross Negligence Manslaughter

  Requires a duty of care, the breach of the duty of care that caused the death and that there was a risk of death
• Gross Negligence Manslaughter

  Leading case- R v Adomako Doctor failed to notice oxygen tube disconnected for 6 minutes which caused the victim's death
• Duty of Care

  Established in Donoghue v stevenson. You owe a duty of care to 'persons so closely affected by... my acts or omissions'.