[Murder] ① Actus Reas) The Actus reas for The 3 elements that need to be present for
murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable [Murder] ③ Causation) The act or
Murder omission must cause death.
creature in being.
• Unlawful) Unlawful is anything Causation is then split into two:
① ③ ② Factual and Legal.
but these two reasons: ❶ Killing
Actus Rea Causation Mens Rea
someone when not a war (queens
peace) ❷ or not in self defence. • The unlawful • Factual and • Malice
• Killing) Killing is through an act (R killing of a legal causation aforethought
v Martin) or omission (R v Stone reasonable • R v White, R v expressed or
creature in implied Factual causation) Factual causation
Dobinson). Jordan, R v
being requires proof that the defendant's
• Reasonable creature in being) Has Smith • R v Vickers, R
• Homicide act v conduct was a necessary condition of
to be a human being independent
1957 Cunningham the consequence, established by
from its mouther (A-Gs ref No.3
proving that the consequence would
1994 (1997)) or has to be brain
not have occurred but for the
dead (R v Malcherek) (R v Steel).
defendant's conduct.
• Use the But For test as in R
[Murder] ② Mens Rea) The mens rea for Fatal offences against the person act v Padget or R v White.
murder is malice aforethought expressed or
Murder
implied.
• Expressed malice) Is the intent to
kill. (R v Huntly)
• Implied malice) Intent to cause Legal causation) The defendant must
Grievous Bodily Harm, which be the operative and substantial
subsequently resulted in death. (R [Murder] Definition) Murder is defined by lord coke cause of death with no novus actus
v Vickers) 400 years ago. It is defined as the Unlawful killing of a interpares to break the chain of
• Intent can be direct and reasonable creature under queens peace with malice events. (R v Smith)
indirect aforethought or expressed or implied. • The think skull rule) Take a
victim as you find them. R v
Blaue
Direct intention) The Indirect intention) The
defendant expressly defendant did not
aimed or set out to cause expressively desire death.
the consequence of death However, the defendant
to the victim. should have foresaw the
• R v Mohan, the consequence as a virtual
defendant has direct certainty.
intent if the actions • R v Woolin (1998)
towards the victim throwing the child at
was his desire. pram, hit wall.
Jake Saville (LVTc2-12/13) 26
murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable [Murder] ③ Causation) The act or
Murder omission must cause death.
creature in being.
• Unlawful) Unlawful is anything Causation is then split into two:
① ③ ② Factual and Legal.
but these two reasons: ❶ Killing
Actus Rea Causation Mens Rea
someone when not a war (queens
peace) ❷ or not in self defence. • The unlawful • Factual and • Malice
• Killing) Killing is through an act (R killing of a legal causation aforethought
v Martin) or omission (R v Stone reasonable • R v White, R v expressed or
creature in implied Factual causation) Factual causation
Dobinson). Jordan, R v
being requires proof that the defendant's
• Reasonable creature in being) Has Smith • R v Vickers, R
• Homicide act v conduct was a necessary condition of
to be a human being independent
1957 Cunningham the consequence, established by
from its mouther (A-Gs ref No.3
proving that the consequence would
1994 (1997)) or has to be brain
not have occurred but for the
dead (R v Malcherek) (R v Steel).
defendant's conduct.
• Use the But For test as in R
[Murder] ② Mens Rea) The mens rea for Fatal offences against the person act v Padget or R v White.
murder is malice aforethought expressed or
Murder
implied.
• Expressed malice) Is the intent to
kill. (R v Huntly)
• Implied malice) Intent to cause Legal causation) The defendant must
Grievous Bodily Harm, which be the operative and substantial
subsequently resulted in death. (R [Murder] Definition) Murder is defined by lord coke cause of death with no novus actus
v Vickers) 400 years ago. It is defined as the Unlawful killing of a interpares to break the chain of
• Intent can be direct and reasonable creature under queens peace with malice events. (R v Smith)
indirect aforethought or expressed or implied. • The think skull rule) Take a
victim as you find them. R v
Blaue
Direct intention) The Indirect intention) The
defendant expressly defendant did not
aimed or set out to cause expressively desire death.
the consequence of death However, the defendant
to the victim. should have foresaw the
• R v Mohan, the consequence as a virtual
defendant has direct certainty.
intent if the actions • R v Woolin (1998)
towards the victim throwing the child at
was his desire. pram, hit wall.
Jake Saville (LVTc2-12/13) 26
