Murder answer examples
Chris may be liable for the murder of Dave. Murder is defined as where the D unlawfully kills
another human being with intention to kill or cause GBH. Firstly, causation must be proved.
Factual causation uses the ‘but for’ test which asks, ‘but for’ the D’s actions, would the result
have happened anyway? (White). But for Chris striking Dave on the back of his head repeatedly,
Dave would not have died. Chris is the factual cause. Chris must also be the legal cause
meaning a significant contribution. This means he must be more than a slight of trifling link to
Dave’s death, but he does not have to be the main cause (Kimsey). Dave suffered a severe
injury to his brain which is obviously significantly linked to Chris hitting him on the head. There is
a causation issue as Dave’s life support machine was switched off. In Malchereck & Steel it was
held that this will not break the chain of causation. The men’s rea for murder is either intention to
kill or cause GBH. There are two types of intention. Direct intention is where it is obvious that
the D intended the outcome (Mohan). Indirect intention isn’t so obvious and the court have
established a 2 stage test in Woolin. Firstly, was death or serious injury virtually certain and,
second, did the D realise this? As Chris said “you can expect more if I catch you at it again” it is
not clear if he intended to kill Dave. Objectively, death or serious injury is a virtual certainty as a
result of hitting someone repeatedly over the head in a powerful way. Chris must have realised
this as it is obvious with such powerful blows to such a vulnerable area. Therefore, in
conclusion, Chris will be liable for the murder of Dave.
Loss of control answer example
Chris may be able to claim the defence of loss of control. This is defined under s.54 Coroners &
Justice Act 2009 as having three stages. Stage 1 states that there must have been a loss of
control. s54(2) states that the loss of control does not need to be sudden but the longer the
delay, the less likely the D is to get the defence. All other circumstances will be taken into
account (Gregson). There has clearly been a loss of control as Chris was feeling depressed
about the state of his marriage and became easily angry about his wife cheating. He picked up
a brick which seems opportunistic and struck Dave violently on the back of his head - there was
no delay. Stage 2 states that there must be a qualifying trigger (s.55), either the fear trigger or
the anger trigger. The anger trigger will apply. Stage 1 states that there must be things said or
done. Sexual infidelity alone cannot be the things said/ done, there must be another provoking
factor (Clinton). Although the provoking factor is cheating, Dave has also laughed at Chris and
then turned away when Chris was confronting him. Secondly, this must amount to
circumstances of an extremely grave character. Laughing at Chris and turning his back is grave
as this shows no respect to Chris who is in a vulnerable state confronting a man about his wife’s
affair. This would be humiliating. Finally, this must have caused the D to have a justifiable sense
of being seriously wronged by the V (Hatter). If Chris had his suspicions and Dave just laughed
and did not take him seriously, he is clearly justified in feeling a sense of being seriously
wronged by Dave as he is refusing to answer any of his questions. Finally stage 3 under s54(3)
asks would a person of the same age and gender with a normal degree of tolerance have
reacted in the same way (Holley). It could be argued that anyone else when faced with
suspicions and are being laughed at and turned their back on would lose control in this way in
the heat of the moment as it must feel humiliating and frustrating.
Chris may be liable for the murder of Dave. Murder is defined as where the D unlawfully kills
another human being with intention to kill or cause GBH. Firstly, causation must be proved.
Factual causation uses the ‘but for’ test which asks, ‘but for’ the D’s actions, would the result
have happened anyway? (White). But for Chris striking Dave on the back of his head repeatedly,
Dave would not have died. Chris is the factual cause. Chris must also be the legal cause
meaning a significant contribution. This means he must be more than a slight of trifling link to
Dave’s death, but he does not have to be the main cause (Kimsey). Dave suffered a severe
injury to his brain which is obviously significantly linked to Chris hitting him on the head. There is
a causation issue as Dave’s life support machine was switched off. In Malchereck & Steel it was
held that this will not break the chain of causation. The men’s rea for murder is either intention to
kill or cause GBH. There are two types of intention. Direct intention is where it is obvious that
the D intended the outcome (Mohan). Indirect intention isn’t so obvious and the court have
established a 2 stage test in Woolin. Firstly, was death or serious injury virtually certain and,
second, did the D realise this? As Chris said “you can expect more if I catch you at it again” it is
not clear if he intended to kill Dave. Objectively, death or serious injury is a virtual certainty as a
result of hitting someone repeatedly over the head in a powerful way. Chris must have realised
this as it is obvious with such powerful blows to such a vulnerable area. Therefore, in
conclusion, Chris will be liable for the murder of Dave.
Loss of control answer example
Chris may be able to claim the defence of loss of control. This is defined under s.54 Coroners &
Justice Act 2009 as having three stages. Stage 1 states that there must have been a loss of
control. s54(2) states that the loss of control does not need to be sudden but the longer the
delay, the less likely the D is to get the defence. All other circumstances will be taken into
account (Gregson). There has clearly been a loss of control as Chris was feeling depressed
about the state of his marriage and became easily angry about his wife cheating. He picked up
a brick which seems opportunistic and struck Dave violently on the back of his head - there was
no delay. Stage 2 states that there must be a qualifying trigger (s.55), either the fear trigger or
the anger trigger. The anger trigger will apply. Stage 1 states that there must be things said or
done. Sexual infidelity alone cannot be the things said/ done, there must be another provoking
factor (Clinton). Although the provoking factor is cheating, Dave has also laughed at Chris and
then turned away when Chris was confronting him. Secondly, this must amount to
circumstances of an extremely grave character. Laughing at Chris and turning his back is grave
as this shows no respect to Chris who is in a vulnerable state confronting a man about his wife’s
affair. This would be humiliating. Finally, this must have caused the D to have a justifiable sense
of being seriously wronged by the V (Hatter). If Chris had his suspicions and Dave just laughed
and did not take him seriously, he is clearly justified in feeling a sense of being seriously
wronged by Dave as he is refusing to answer any of his questions. Finally stage 3 under s54(3)
asks would a person of the same age and gender with a normal degree of tolerance have
reacted in the same way (Holley). It could be argued that anyone else when faced with
suspicions and are being laughed at and turned their back on would lose control in this way in
the heat of the moment as it must feel humiliating and frustrating.
