Homicide Scenario
Murder
Define
To be liable for murder, (D) must have both the actus reus and mens rea of the
offence. These can be identified within the definition of murder, which is derived
from a statement made by 17th century judge Lord Coke.
Actus Reus
The actus reus of murder is the unlawful person of a reasonable person in being
under the King’s peace.
V is a ‘reasonable person in being’, as defined by the case of AG’s Reference No. 3
(2003), where it was suggested that a human being is a person who can exist
independent of their mother.
For the killing to be unlawful, (D’s) act must not have been carried out in self-defence
as seen in R v Beckford.
Was the act done in self-defence?
Murder can be committed either by an act or omission, as demonstrated by the case
of R v Pittwood, where a railway keeper failed to close a crossing gate
(Only liable if a special relationship is present!)
Act or omission?
It must be shown that the killing took place under the King’s peace as killing
someone at war is not murder.
(V’s) scenario?
Factual Causation
‘But For’ Test
It must be proved that (D) both factually and legally caused the death of (V).
The ‘but for’ test can be used in line with factual causation. This asks ‘but for the
defendant’s acts, would V have died? Used in Paggett and Dalloway.
In R v White, D put cyanide in his mother’s drink but was found not guilty because
she died before the poison could take effect.
Apply
Legal Causation
Operating and Substantial
For legal causation, (D’s) conduct must be an ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the
death. This can vary between the substantial and the minimal.
In Kimsey, the court stated that it was acceptable to tell the jury that the defendant’s
conduct must be more than a ‘slight or trifling link’ to the consequence and this has
come to be known as the ‘de minimus’ rule.
, Is it more than a slight or trifling link in (D’s) case?
Thin Skull Rule
(D) must also take the victim as he finds them. This is part of the ‘thin skull test’ and
means if (V) has anything unusual about their physical state which makes an injury
more serious, then D is liable for the more serious injury.
Apply
An example of this is Blaue, where the V had an unusually thin skull.
Intervening Act
There must be a direct link between (D’s) actions and (V’s) death.
Sometimes an intervening act can break the chain of causation and therefore D is no
longer liable.
This is demonstrated by R v Roberts, where it was contemplated whether it was
foreseeable that a woman would jump out of a car if she was in danger of being
sexually assaulted.
Victims own act – R v Kennedy
Apply
Certain instances will not break the chain of causation. This was the case in R v
Malcherek where it was held that a doctor switching off a life-support machine
where a patient is deemed brain dead does not break the chain of causation.
Mens Rea
The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the
courts as the intention to kill (express) or the intention cause GBH (implied)
[‘grievous’ = serious – DPP v Smith]
In turn, intention can then be split into direct and oblique intention.
Direct
Where D aims to cause the damage that was inflicted
R v Mohan – D aimed to run over a police officer
Apply
Oblique
Where it is not D's aim or purpose to bring about a prohibited result, but he foresees
that result as virtually certain to occur as a result of his actions.
R v Woollin – D through his baby in a fit of rage, knowing that serious harm was a
virtual certainty. Whilst the death was allegedly not D’s aim, harm was still intended
on some level.
Apply
Murder
Define
To be liable for murder, (D) must have both the actus reus and mens rea of the
offence. These can be identified within the definition of murder, which is derived
from a statement made by 17th century judge Lord Coke.
Actus Reus
The actus reus of murder is the unlawful person of a reasonable person in being
under the King’s peace.
V is a ‘reasonable person in being’, as defined by the case of AG’s Reference No. 3
(2003), where it was suggested that a human being is a person who can exist
independent of their mother.
For the killing to be unlawful, (D’s) act must not have been carried out in self-defence
as seen in R v Beckford.
Was the act done in self-defence?
Murder can be committed either by an act or omission, as demonstrated by the case
of R v Pittwood, where a railway keeper failed to close a crossing gate
(Only liable if a special relationship is present!)
Act or omission?
It must be shown that the killing took place under the King’s peace as killing
someone at war is not murder.
(V’s) scenario?
Factual Causation
‘But For’ Test
It must be proved that (D) both factually and legally caused the death of (V).
The ‘but for’ test can be used in line with factual causation. This asks ‘but for the
defendant’s acts, would V have died? Used in Paggett and Dalloway.
In R v White, D put cyanide in his mother’s drink but was found not guilty because
she died before the poison could take effect.
Apply
Legal Causation
Operating and Substantial
For legal causation, (D’s) conduct must be an ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the
death. This can vary between the substantial and the minimal.
In Kimsey, the court stated that it was acceptable to tell the jury that the defendant’s
conduct must be more than a ‘slight or trifling link’ to the consequence and this has
come to be known as the ‘de minimus’ rule.
, Is it more than a slight or trifling link in (D’s) case?
Thin Skull Rule
(D) must also take the victim as he finds them. This is part of the ‘thin skull test’ and
means if (V) has anything unusual about their physical state which makes an injury
more serious, then D is liable for the more serious injury.
Apply
An example of this is Blaue, where the V had an unusually thin skull.
Intervening Act
There must be a direct link between (D’s) actions and (V’s) death.
Sometimes an intervening act can break the chain of causation and therefore D is no
longer liable.
This is demonstrated by R v Roberts, where it was contemplated whether it was
foreseeable that a woman would jump out of a car if she was in danger of being
sexually assaulted.
Victims own act – R v Kennedy
Apply
Certain instances will not break the chain of causation. This was the case in R v
Malcherek where it was held that a doctor switching off a life-support machine
where a patient is deemed brain dead does not break the chain of causation.
Mens Rea
The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the
courts as the intention to kill (express) or the intention cause GBH (implied)
[‘grievous’ = serious – DPP v Smith]
In turn, intention can then be split into direct and oblique intention.
Direct
Where D aims to cause the damage that was inflicted
R v Mohan – D aimed to run over a police officer
Apply
Oblique
Where it is not D's aim or purpose to bring about a prohibited result, but he foresees
that result as virtually certain to occur as a result of his actions.
R v Woollin – D through his baby in a fit of rage, knowing that serious harm was a
virtual certainty. Whilst the death was allegedly not D’s aim, harm was still intended
on some level.
Apply
