VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
-Depending on problem question be prepared to discuss self-defence, loss of
control and diminished responsibility
MURDER- ‘an unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s
(Queen’s) Peace’- Coke (3 Inst 47).
* state the elements for murder at the start of the problem question and apply them to the
facts, then discuss the partial defences / self defence
ACTUS REUS
1. UNLAWFUL The killing must be unlawful- lawful killing if it falls into following
category:
-Killing enemy soldiers in battle
-Advancement of justice (e.g. lawful application of the death
penalty)
-Self defence (if applicable, mention it could be self-defence and
then discuss at the end of the question).
2. KILLING The defendant’s act caused the death in question- normal
rules of causation apply (factual / legal causation).
3. A REASONABLE A person born alive and capable of independent life (a human
PERSON being)-
R v Poulton: if there is a child in question, they must be fully
expelled from the mother’s body and born alive
-Littledale J: ‘the being born must mean that the whole body is
brought into the world. Whether the child was born alive or not
depends mainly upon the evidence of the medical man’.
AG-Ref (No 3 of 1994): a pregnant woman was stabbed in her
abdomen and the child was born prematurely and later died- held
not to be murder because the child was not a live person when it
was stabbed.
R v Reeves: not necessary for the umbilical cord between mother
and baby to have been cut.
CLRC 14 Report: it is not possible to murder a corpse- at the
moment when the brain dies, the person will be held to have died.
4. UNDER THE R v Adebolajo, Lord Thomas CJ: ‘an offender can generally be
, ‘KING’S / QUEEN’S tried for murder wherever committed if he is a British subject, or
PEACE’ not a British subject, if the murder was committed within England
and Wales’.
MENS REA
1. INTENTION TO KILL Malice aforethought = intention to kill (express malice) or
OR CAUSE GBH intention to cause grievous bodily harm (implied malice)- R v
Vickers.
-In this case D broke into a shop wanting to steal- was disturbed
by a lady so he struck her and she died. Not a defence that he
intended to cause her grievous bodily harm.
-Note: make sure that you define grievous bodily harm in the
question- really serious harm (DPP v Smith) / serious harm (R v
Saunders).
-There need not be any malice- even if the defendant has a
benevolent motive (such as a mercy killing because someone is
terminally ill), it will still be murder providing that they intended to
kill or cause grievous bodily harm- R v Inglis.
-Consider direct and oblique intent (recklessness does not apply
for murder):
-Direct intent: D’s purpose or objective in acting is the death or
GBH of the victim.
-Oblique intent: where D’s purpose in acting is to achieve
something other than death or GBH, but death/GBH is an
inevitable consequence (R v Woollin- see MR table).
LOSS OF CONTROL
Section 54(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009- where D kills, or is party to the
killing of another (V), D is not to be convicted of murder if:
(a)- D’s acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from their loss of
control;
(b)- the loss of control had a qualifying trigger;
(c)- a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint, and in
the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
Note: you do not have to conclude each element, simply state that these will be considered
by the Jury, and if fulfilled then the next test is…
Effect of defence if defence operates, D is guilty of voluntary
PRELIMS manslaughter and not murder (partial defence).
-S54(7) CJA 2009.
-Depending on problem question be prepared to discuss self-defence, loss of
control and diminished responsibility
MURDER- ‘an unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s
(Queen’s) Peace’- Coke (3 Inst 47).
* state the elements for murder at the start of the problem question and apply them to the
facts, then discuss the partial defences / self defence
ACTUS REUS
1. UNLAWFUL The killing must be unlawful- lawful killing if it falls into following
category:
-Killing enemy soldiers in battle
-Advancement of justice (e.g. lawful application of the death
penalty)
-Self defence (if applicable, mention it could be self-defence and
then discuss at the end of the question).
2. KILLING The defendant’s act caused the death in question- normal
rules of causation apply (factual / legal causation).
3. A REASONABLE A person born alive and capable of independent life (a human
PERSON being)-
R v Poulton: if there is a child in question, they must be fully
expelled from the mother’s body and born alive
-Littledale J: ‘the being born must mean that the whole body is
brought into the world. Whether the child was born alive or not
depends mainly upon the evidence of the medical man’.
AG-Ref (No 3 of 1994): a pregnant woman was stabbed in her
abdomen and the child was born prematurely and later died- held
not to be murder because the child was not a live person when it
was stabbed.
R v Reeves: not necessary for the umbilical cord between mother
and baby to have been cut.
CLRC 14 Report: it is not possible to murder a corpse- at the
moment when the brain dies, the person will be held to have died.
4. UNDER THE R v Adebolajo, Lord Thomas CJ: ‘an offender can generally be
, ‘KING’S / QUEEN’S tried for murder wherever committed if he is a British subject, or
PEACE’ not a British subject, if the murder was committed within England
and Wales’.
MENS REA
1. INTENTION TO KILL Malice aforethought = intention to kill (express malice) or
OR CAUSE GBH intention to cause grievous bodily harm (implied malice)- R v
Vickers.
-In this case D broke into a shop wanting to steal- was disturbed
by a lady so he struck her and she died. Not a defence that he
intended to cause her grievous bodily harm.
-Note: make sure that you define grievous bodily harm in the
question- really serious harm (DPP v Smith) / serious harm (R v
Saunders).
-There need not be any malice- even if the defendant has a
benevolent motive (such as a mercy killing because someone is
terminally ill), it will still be murder providing that they intended to
kill or cause grievous bodily harm- R v Inglis.
-Consider direct and oblique intent (recklessness does not apply
for murder):
-Direct intent: D’s purpose or objective in acting is the death or
GBH of the victim.
-Oblique intent: where D’s purpose in acting is to achieve
something other than death or GBH, but death/GBH is an
inevitable consequence (R v Woollin- see MR table).
LOSS OF CONTROL
Section 54(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009- where D kills, or is party to the
killing of another (V), D is not to be convicted of murder if:
(a)- D’s acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from their loss of
control;
(b)- the loss of control had a qualifying trigger;
(c)- a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint, and in
the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
Note: you do not have to conclude each element, simply state that these will be considered
by the Jury, and if fulfilled then the next test is…
Effect of defence if defence operates, D is guilty of voluntary
PRELIMS manslaughter and not murder (partial defence).
-S54(7) CJA 2009.
