HOMICIDE
MURDER
AR MR
Death of a human, caused by D’s act or omission, occurring under Queen’s Peace (Coke) Intention to kill or cause GBH at time of conduct causing
death (Cunningham)
Death
Just because V stops breathing or heart stops does NOT mean death Malice not required: for instance, ‘mercy killing’ still
Malcherek: When V brain dead = dead constitutes murder
Bland: Being in persistent/permanent vegetative state or coma = not dead Premeditation not required (Mitchell)
A human Intention
2 problematic situations: Direct intention: conduct is carried out in order to bring
(i) Foetus about the death
Foetus (unborn child) only becomes a person under CL when ‘fully expelled from the womb alive’ and Oblique intention: conduct is virtually certain to cause
exists independently from mum (Poulton) death, D foresees this, jury chooses to find intention
(Woollin)
Special situation: prenatal harm causing postnatal death (foetus harmed in womb dies after birth)
AG Ref No.3/94: as long as foetus born alive before death, it is a ‘person’. AR satisfied. To kill or cause GBH
So if baby had died in the womb = not ‘person’ = no homicide conviction GBH: intend to cause ‘serious’ harm where seriousness
depends on V’s age and vulnerability (Bollom)
Conjoined twins: child independent of mother but biologically dependent on someone else - What would injure a baby (like in Bollom) likely
Re A: Each twin is considered a separate human being. won’t injure an adult
- If V is haemophiliac, pricking him with a pin could
(ii) Dead person lead to jury finding this as an intention to cause
See above ‘death’. When person is dead = no longer a ‘person’ capable of being murdered GBH
= if D stabs brain dead corpse believing he alive, no murder but attempted murder - Intention to cause physical harm (broken bones,
= if D stabs person in coma, murder stabbing)
Under Queen’s peace Problematic situations: PQ
When in peace time, any homicide committed by a British citizen in foreign land can be tried and (i) Foetus
punished in England (s9 OAPA 1861) - If D intends to seriously injure or kill mum,
transfer of malice to baby ruled out because of
D’s conduct ‘double transfer of MR’ doctrine (from mum to
1
, Possible by omission (Gibbons and Proctor). P must prove: the foetus, to its changed status as a person)
(i) There was a duty to act AG Ref 3/94
Familial duty (Stone v Dobinson) - If D intends to seriously injure or kill unborn
Assumption of duty (in charge of buying food in the household) (Gibbons and Proctor) foetus, no MR because foetus not a person yet
Creation of source of danger (Miller)
Contributed to creation of dangerous state of affairs (Evans applying Miller) ! PQ usually straightforward that D acts voluntarily and is
(ii) Breaching this duty caused the death aware that V is a person. In these cases, no need to discuss
Omission to feed child MR beyond required intention to kill or cause GBH.
Failing to get prompt medical attention (Evans) However, where there is uncertainty, discuss SHO’s
identified MR elements beyond intention to kill or cause
Causation GBH
Factual causation: but-for (White)
Legal causation: D remains a substantial (Hughes) and operating (Smith) cause. (ii) D can only commit murder if act or omission
Is there novus actus? causing death was voluntary (SHO)
FDI (Kennedy No.2) Ex: where a spasm in D’s finger causes her to pull trigger of
So ‘independent and potent’ as to render D’s contribution ‘insignificant’ (Cheshire) a gun
Omissions, thin-skull rule: take V as you find them (Blaue)
(iii) D must know that what she is killing is a person
Causing death = logically synonymous to accelerating death (SHO)
Dyson: killing terminally ill patient or someone with only short time to live Ex: D shoots at a figure unsure if it is a person
Inglis: doctor, family member, or anyone intentionally ending V’s life to relieve pain or suffering,
believing V would not have lived long anyway
Establish if complete defence applies. If not, move to consider:
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Where there is a partial defence to prima facie liability for murder
Loss of Control Loss of self- Subjective
Coroner’s & control Should be interpreted to require extreme emotion and/or loss of rationality (= did an act he would normally avoid by
Justice Act 2009 s54(1)(a) reason of morality or fear of consequences) (Jewell)
s54
No need to be sudden s54(2)
Burden of disproof o But too long a delay between provocation & reaction implies the trigger didn’t cause loss of self-control ( 2009 Act
2
MURDER
AR MR
Death of a human, caused by D’s act or omission, occurring under Queen’s Peace (Coke) Intention to kill or cause GBH at time of conduct causing
death (Cunningham)
Death
Just because V stops breathing or heart stops does NOT mean death Malice not required: for instance, ‘mercy killing’ still
Malcherek: When V brain dead = dead constitutes murder
Bland: Being in persistent/permanent vegetative state or coma = not dead Premeditation not required (Mitchell)
A human Intention
2 problematic situations: Direct intention: conduct is carried out in order to bring
(i) Foetus about the death
Foetus (unborn child) only becomes a person under CL when ‘fully expelled from the womb alive’ and Oblique intention: conduct is virtually certain to cause
exists independently from mum (Poulton) death, D foresees this, jury chooses to find intention
(Woollin)
Special situation: prenatal harm causing postnatal death (foetus harmed in womb dies after birth)
AG Ref No.3/94: as long as foetus born alive before death, it is a ‘person’. AR satisfied. To kill or cause GBH
So if baby had died in the womb = not ‘person’ = no homicide conviction GBH: intend to cause ‘serious’ harm where seriousness
depends on V’s age and vulnerability (Bollom)
Conjoined twins: child independent of mother but biologically dependent on someone else - What would injure a baby (like in Bollom) likely
Re A: Each twin is considered a separate human being. won’t injure an adult
- If V is haemophiliac, pricking him with a pin could
(ii) Dead person lead to jury finding this as an intention to cause
See above ‘death’. When person is dead = no longer a ‘person’ capable of being murdered GBH
= if D stabs brain dead corpse believing he alive, no murder but attempted murder - Intention to cause physical harm (broken bones,
= if D stabs person in coma, murder stabbing)
Under Queen’s peace Problematic situations: PQ
When in peace time, any homicide committed by a British citizen in foreign land can be tried and (i) Foetus
punished in England (s9 OAPA 1861) - If D intends to seriously injure or kill mum,
transfer of malice to baby ruled out because of
D’s conduct ‘double transfer of MR’ doctrine (from mum to
1
, Possible by omission (Gibbons and Proctor). P must prove: the foetus, to its changed status as a person)
(i) There was a duty to act AG Ref 3/94
Familial duty (Stone v Dobinson) - If D intends to seriously injure or kill unborn
Assumption of duty (in charge of buying food in the household) (Gibbons and Proctor) foetus, no MR because foetus not a person yet
Creation of source of danger (Miller)
Contributed to creation of dangerous state of affairs (Evans applying Miller) ! PQ usually straightforward that D acts voluntarily and is
(ii) Breaching this duty caused the death aware that V is a person. In these cases, no need to discuss
Omission to feed child MR beyond required intention to kill or cause GBH.
Failing to get prompt medical attention (Evans) However, where there is uncertainty, discuss SHO’s
identified MR elements beyond intention to kill or cause
Causation GBH
Factual causation: but-for (White)
Legal causation: D remains a substantial (Hughes) and operating (Smith) cause. (ii) D can only commit murder if act or omission
Is there novus actus? causing death was voluntary (SHO)
FDI (Kennedy No.2) Ex: where a spasm in D’s finger causes her to pull trigger of
So ‘independent and potent’ as to render D’s contribution ‘insignificant’ (Cheshire) a gun
Omissions, thin-skull rule: take V as you find them (Blaue)
(iii) D must know that what she is killing is a person
Causing death = logically synonymous to accelerating death (SHO)
Dyson: killing terminally ill patient or someone with only short time to live Ex: D shoots at a figure unsure if it is a person
Inglis: doctor, family member, or anyone intentionally ending V’s life to relieve pain or suffering,
believing V would not have lived long anyway
Establish if complete defence applies. If not, move to consider:
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Where there is a partial defence to prima facie liability for murder
Loss of Control Loss of self- Subjective
Coroner’s & control Should be interpreted to require extreme emotion and/or loss of rationality (= did an act he would normally avoid by
Justice Act 2009 s54(1)(a) reason of morality or fear of consequences) (Jewell)
s54
No need to be sudden s54(2)
Burden of disproof o But too long a delay between provocation & reaction implies the trigger didn’t cause loss of self-control ( 2009 Act
2
