Over the last few months Harry and Isobel’s relationship had become increasingly
strained as Harry’s behaviour had become unpredictable and often violent. One
evening, Isobel read a message on Harry’s phone from her sister. The message read
‘thank you for a wonderful evening, darling’. Isobel confronted Harry and accused him
of having an affair with her sister. Harry became aggressive, smashing plates and
taunting Isobel for being jealous. He shouted, “You’re a useless wife. I wish I’d
married your sister!”
Harry was tired but before he went to bed he told Isobel that he would beat her up in
the morning. About an hour later, when Harry was asleep, Isobel was furious about
the events of the evening and the threat he had made to her. She was also worrying
about what would happen the next morning. Isobel took a kitchen knife and stabbed
Harry several times, before fleeing from the bedroom. Harry died from blood loss.
Consider Isobel’s criminal liability for the murder of Harry.
Assuming that Isobel is found guilty, assess the sentencing powers available to
the court (30 marks).
In this case, Isobel is the defendant while Harry is the victim in a case of murder and
voluntary manslaughter, loss of control.
Section 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act defines murder as the unlawful killing of a
reasonable person being and under the King’s Peace with malice aforethought, express
and implied. The courts may consider the actus reus first to determine whether Isobel’s
acts account to murder. Firstly, it must be proved that the defendant killed someone,
with reference to causation (R v Gibbins and Proctor). As for factual causation, but for
Isobel stabbing Harry, Harry may not have suffered from “blood loss” and “died” as a
result. This concerns the ‘but for’ test (R v Paggett). As for legal causation, it must be
proved that the defendant was a ‘more than minimal’ cause of the victim’s death (R v
Kimsey). With allusion to factual causation, the courts may find Isobel to be a ‘more
than minimal’ cause as she “stabbed” Harry “several times”, meaning she may have
caused the blood loss to initially occur. Therefore, Isobel may have killed someone (R v
Gibbins and Proctor).
Next, it must be determined whether the killing was unlawful. Unlawful refers to a killing
that is not permitted under the law (contrary to wartime and police killings, which are
lawful). It may be found that the killing of Harry was unlawful as Isobel was influenced to
“stab” him due to their “strained” relationship. This may mean that there were no legal
grounds for murder. Next, it must be established whether the victim was a reasonable
person (Attorney General Report). This simply refers to whether the victim was a human
being, and Harry was. Lastly, for the actus reus, it must be found that the killing was
strained as Harry’s behaviour had become unpredictable and often violent. One
evening, Isobel read a message on Harry’s phone from her sister. The message read
‘thank you for a wonderful evening, darling’. Isobel confronted Harry and accused him
of having an affair with her sister. Harry became aggressive, smashing plates and
taunting Isobel for being jealous. He shouted, “You’re a useless wife. I wish I’d
married your sister!”
Harry was tired but before he went to bed he told Isobel that he would beat her up in
the morning. About an hour later, when Harry was asleep, Isobel was furious about
the events of the evening and the threat he had made to her. She was also worrying
about what would happen the next morning. Isobel took a kitchen knife and stabbed
Harry several times, before fleeing from the bedroom. Harry died from blood loss.
Consider Isobel’s criminal liability for the murder of Harry.
Assuming that Isobel is found guilty, assess the sentencing powers available to
the court (30 marks).
In this case, Isobel is the defendant while Harry is the victim in a case of murder and
voluntary manslaughter, loss of control.
Section 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act defines murder as the unlawful killing of a
reasonable person being and under the King’s Peace with malice aforethought, express
and implied. The courts may consider the actus reus first to determine whether Isobel’s
acts account to murder. Firstly, it must be proved that the defendant killed someone,
with reference to causation (R v Gibbins and Proctor). As for factual causation, but for
Isobel stabbing Harry, Harry may not have suffered from “blood loss” and “died” as a
result. This concerns the ‘but for’ test (R v Paggett). As for legal causation, it must be
proved that the defendant was a ‘more than minimal’ cause of the victim’s death (R v
Kimsey). With allusion to factual causation, the courts may find Isobel to be a ‘more
than minimal’ cause as she “stabbed” Harry “several times”, meaning she may have
caused the blood loss to initially occur. Therefore, Isobel may have killed someone (R v
Gibbins and Proctor).
Next, it must be determined whether the killing was unlawful. Unlawful refers to a killing
that is not permitted under the law (contrary to wartime and police killings, which are
lawful). It may be found that the killing of Harry was unlawful as Isobel was influenced to
“stab” him due to their “strained” relationship. This may mean that there were no legal
grounds for murder. Next, it must be established whether the victim was a reasonable
person (Attorney General Report). This simply refers to whether the victim was a human
being, and Harry was. Lastly, for the actus reus, it must be found that the killing was
