Unit 4- P1, M1
Alex Omidvar
Unit 4 – P1, M1 Practice Assignment
P1 - Apply the actus reus and mens rea of murder in given situations
M1 – Apply the law of murder in given situations
Introduction
This assignment endeavoured to explain and analyse the actus reus and Mens rea of murder
with many case examples. Furthermore, two scenarios are going to be analysed in terms of their
Actus reus and Mens rea as well as considering FLAT in order to break down the scenarios and
evaluate them in an analytical procedure. The importance of proving the defendant’s intention
lies upon the sentence. Without intention, the crime would be classed as manslaughter whereas
if a defendant had an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm and causes his victim to
die, the crime would be classed as murder. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment.
Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under Queen’s peace with the aim to kill or
impose grievous bodily harm. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment.
Actus reus
Unlawful killing
Unlawful killing means that the victim must be killed unlawfully and certain defences such as
self-defence, makes the killing lawful. Furthermore, causation must be established and an
omission of the offender must have been legal cause of the death of the victim. In the case of R
v Dr Bodkins Adams (1957), Doctor Bodkins Adams had order to give a lethal dose of pain killers
to a terminally ill patient. The court acquitted Dr Bodkins and Devlin J in response stated that "a
life shortened by weeks or months is just as much murder as one shortened by years....
However, a doctor is entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain and suffering
even if such measures may incidentally shorten life.” This means that the act of killing was not
intentional neither unlawful as the doctor was just doing his job to keep the patient away from
pain.
Human Being/not foetus
There must be an act of killing of a living human being. For instance the case of Burton v
Islington Health Authority (1003) CA refers to an act of killing an unborn child. Such an omission
cannot be classed as Murder. The courts stated that “the child en ventre sa mere (unborn) does
not have a distinct human personality, whose extinguishment gives rise to any penalties or
liabilities at common law”
Queen’s peace
1
Alex Omidvar
Unit 4 – P1, M1 Practice Assignment
P1 - Apply the actus reus and mens rea of murder in given situations
M1 – Apply the law of murder in given situations
Introduction
This assignment endeavoured to explain and analyse the actus reus and Mens rea of murder
with many case examples. Furthermore, two scenarios are going to be analysed in terms of their
Actus reus and Mens rea as well as considering FLAT in order to break down the scenarios and
evaluate them in an analytical procedure. The importance of proving the defendant’s intention
lies upon the sentence. Without intention, the crime would be classed as manslaughter whereas
if a defendant had an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm and causes his victim to
die, the crime would be classed as murder. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment.
Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under Queen’s peace with the aim to kill or
impose grievous bodily harm. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment.
Actus reus
Unlawful killing
Unlawful killing means that the victim must be killed unlawfully and certain defences such as
self-defence, makes the killing lawful. Furthermore, causation must be established and an
omission of the offender must have been legal cause of the death of the victim. In the case of R
v Dr Bodkins Adams (1957), Doctor Bodkins Adams had order to give a lethal dose of pain killers
to a terminally ill patient. The court acquitted Dr Bodkins and Devlin J in response stated that "a
life shortened by weeks or months is just as much murder as one shortened by years....
However, a doctor is entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain and suffering
even if such measures may incidentally shorten life.” This means that the act of killing was not
intentional neither unlawful as the doctor was just doing his job to keep the patient away from
pain.
Human Being/not foetus
There must be an act of killing of a living human being. For instance the case of Burton v
Islington Health Authority (1003) CA refers to an act of killing an unborn child. Such an omission
cannot be classed as Murder. The courts stated that “the child en ventre sa mere (unborn) does
not have a distinct human personality, whose extinguishment gives rise to any penalties or
liabilities at common law”
Queen’s peace
1
