Lecture 1
Murder & Intention
Homicide offences in context
If the person is dead, we think of homicide. D will be guilty of murder if there’s an intention
to kill or cause GBH. Potential defences of murder are:
- Loss of Control
- Diminished Responsibility
- Suicide Pact
Where D successfully pleads one of these, the conviction is for voluntary manslaughter.
Where D kills, but there’s no intention to kill or cause GBH. Two possible charges:
- Unlawful Act Manslaughter
- Gross Negligence Manslaughter
There are both involved in ‘involuntary manslaughter.’
Murder is a common law offence.
Murder – the unlawful killing of a person in being in the queen’s peace with malice
aforethought.
Actus Reus – unlawful – killing – of a person in being (life begins where the foetus has been
expelled from the womb and takes its first independent breath. AG’s ref no 3 [1994]). (Life
ends when the person’s brain is deemed dead. RE A (a minor) [1992]). – in queens peace ( R
v Adebolajo and Adebowale [2014] D stated they felt they were at war, court dismissed the
argument).
Mens Rea – malice aforethought (‘intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm’ R v
Cunningham [1982]). Smith 1961 – GBH means really serious harm.
Intention within criminal law
Direct Intention – R v Moloney [1985] The aim desire and purpose are to kill or cause
serious bodily harm. Motive is not included within intent.
Indirect/Oblique Intention – it can be difficult to prove intention. Often defendants aren’t
always open about their intention, making it difficult to prove.
R v Moloney [1985] Defendant and stepfather loading shotguns drunk, shooting his dad, and
killing him at blank range. Was it foreseen as a mere probability? This could amount to
intention. House of Lords discussed whether foresight was a natural consequence.
R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] Throwing a concrete block off a motorway bridge, trying
to stop miners in vehicles getting through and going to work. Trial judge directed towards
whether it was a natural consequence.
R v Nedrick [1986] D poured paraffin through the letterbox and set it alight. This caused a
fire and a child died. Was it highly probable that he foresaw death/serious injury? First time
we had virtual certainty.
Murder & Intention
Homicide offences in context
If the person is dead, we think of homicide. D will be guilty of murder if there’s an intention
to kill or cause GBH. Potential defences of murder are:
- Loss of Control
- Diminished Responsibility
- Suicide Pact
Where D successfully pleads one of these, the conviction is for voluntary manslaughter.
Where D kills, but there’s no intention to kill or cause GBH. Two possible charges:
- Unlawful Act Manslaughter
- Gross Negligence Manslaughter
There are both involved in ‘involuntary manslaughter.’
Murder is a common law offence.
Murder – the unlawful killing of a person in being in the queen’s peace with malice
aforethought.
Actus Reus – unlawful – killing – of a person in being (life begins where the foetus has been
expelled from the womb and takes its first independent breath. AG’s ref no 3 [1994]). (Life
ends when the person’s brain is deemed dead. RE A (a minor) [1992]). – in queens peace ( R
v Adebolajo and Adebowale [2014] D stated they felt they were at war, court dismissed the
argument).
Mens Rea – malice aforethought (‘intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm’ R v
Cunningham [1982]). Smith 1961 – GBH means really serious harm.
Intention within criminal law
Direct Intention – R v Moloney [1985] The aim desire and purpose are to kill or cause
serious bodily harm. Motive is not included within intent.
Indirect/Oblique Intention – it can be difficult to prove intention. Often defendants aren’t
always open about their intention, making it difficult to prove.
R v Moloney [1985] Defendant and stepfather loading shotguns drunk, shooting his dad, and
killing him at blank range. Was it foreseen as a mere probability? This could amount to
intention. House of Lords discussed whether foresight was a natural consequence.
R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] Throwing a concrete block off a motorway bridge, trying
to stop miners in vehicles getting through and going to work. Trial judge directed towards
whether it was a natural consequence.
R v Nedrick [1986] D poured paraffin through the letterbox and set it alight. This caused a
fire and a child died. Was it highly probable that he foresaw death/serious injury? First time
we had virtual certainty.
