Fatal Offences Against the Person
Murder
Murder is a common law offence meaning it is not defined under any Statute. Lord Coke
defined it as ‘the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being, under the king's peace,
with malice aforethought, express or implied’. Murder is a result crime meaning someone
must die for a murder case to be successful. The sentencing for murder is life imprisonment
(Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965). The actus reus of murder is ‘the unlawful
killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace’. ‘Unlawful’ - most killings are
unlawful, however killing in self defence or at war may result in a lawful killing. ‘Killing’ -
death can be committed via an act or omission meaning failure to do something that results
in death may be considered murder (Stone and Dobinson, R v Dytham, R v Pittwood). ‘A
reasonable person in being’ refers to a human being. AG Ref. No3 of 1994 confirms that
violence towards a foetus in utero is not considered murder as the foetus is not a distinct
individual. R v Malcherek and Steel confirms that doctors can turn off a brain dead person’s
life support machine and not be liable for murder or manslaughter. ‘Under the King’s peace’
means killing during wartime is not considered murder (R v Adebolajo). The mens rea for
murder is in the second half of Lord Coke’s definition. ‘Malice aforethought’ means D had
intention to kill or cause GBH (DPP v Smith). Despite the wording, no premeditation is
required. D need not have foreseen death or harm that results in death (R v Cunningham).
‘Express’ means intention to kill and ‘implied’ means intention to cause GBH. D can be guilty
of murder even if they did not intend to kill (R v Vickers).
Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished Responsibility
Diminished responsibility is a partial defence, along with loss of control, to murder and only
murder. A partial defence may result in a reduced sentence, never full acquittal. DR was first
introduced in the Homicide Act 1957 as a way for killers with mental health conditions to
avoid the death penalty and, after the death penalty was abolished in 1965, DR and loss of
control remained as a partial defence to murder. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009
amended the defence of DR as well as replacing the defence of provocation with a new
defence called loss of control. In order for a D to successfully plead diminished
responsibility, they must satisfy all elements of S.2 Homicide Act 1957. These elements are
as followed -
S.2(1) D must suffer from abnormality of mind (R v Byrne) which -
- (a) arose from a recognised medical condition (Ahluwalia, Byrne, Conroy)
- (b) substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in
S.2(1)(a) (R v Golds)
- (c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the
killing and must cause of be a significant contributory factor in causing D to carry out
that conduct
S.2(1)(a) These things are -
- (a) to understand the nature of D’s conduct
- (b) to form rational judgement
- (c) to exercise self control.
The burden of proof is on the defendant. R v Brennan showed that the defence must provide
medical evidence to prove the defence of diminished responsibility. When looking at DR and
Murder
Murder is a common law offence meaning it is not defined under any Statute. Lord Coke
defined it as ‘the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being, under the king's peace,
with malice aforethought, express or implied’. Murder is a result crime meaning someone
must die for a murder case to be successful. The sentencing for murder is life imprisonment
(Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965). The actus reus of murder is ‘the unlawful
killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace’. ‘Unlawful’ - most killings are
unlawful, however killing in self defence or at war may result in a lawful killing. ‘Killing’ -
death can be committed via an act or omission meaning failure to do something that results
in death may be considered murder (Stone and Dobinson, R v Dytham, R v Pittwood). ‘A
reasonable person in being’ refers to a human being. AG Ref. No3 of 1994 confirms that
violence towards a foetus in utero is not considered murder as the foetus is not a distinct
individual. R v Malcherek and Steel confirms that doctors can turn off a brain dead person’s
life support machine and not be liable for murder or manslaughter. ‘Under the King’s peace’
means killing during wartime is not considered murder (R v Adebolajo). The mens rea for
murder is in the second half of Lord Coke’s definition. ‘Malice aforethought’ means D had
intention to kill or cause GBH (DPP v Smith). Despite the wording, no premeditation is
required. D need not have foreseen death or harm that results in death (R v Cunningham).
‘Express’ means intention to kill and ‘implied’ means intention to cause GBH. D can be guilty
of murder even if they did not intend to kill (R v Vickers).
Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished Responsibility
Diminished responsibility is a partial defence, along with loss of control, to murder and only
murder. A partial defence may result in a reduced sentence, never full acquittal. DR was first
introduced in the Homicide Act 1957 as a way for killers with mental health conditions to
avoid the death penalty and, after the death penalty was abolished in 1965, DR and loss of
control remained as a partial defence to murder. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009
amended the defence of DR as well as replacing the defence of provocation with a new
defence called loss of control. In order for a D to successfully plead diminished
responsibility, they must satisfy all elements of S.2 Homicide Act 1957. These elements are
as followed -
S.2(1) D must suffer from abnormality of mind (R v Byrne) which -
- (a) arose from a recognised medical condition (Ahluwalia, Byrne, Conroy)
- (b) substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in
S.2(1)(a) (R v Golds)
- (c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the
killing and must cause of be a significant contributory factor in causing D to carry out
that conduct
S.2(1)(a) These things are -
- (a) to understand the nature of D’s conduct
- (b) to form rational judgement
- (c) to exercise self control.
The burden of proof is on the defendant. R v Brennan showed that the defence must provide
medical evidence to prove the defence of diminished responsibility. When looking at DR and
