1) the rules are largely in the common law 2) The mandatory life sentence for murder is problematic
This can be seen as a positive as the law (precedents) can be changed relatively The judge has no choice of sentence- they must pass a life sentence-
quickly (on appeal) to reflect changes in technology and society as shown in some are critical of this as it rarely means that the defendant spends the
Malcherek & Steele (considered switching of life support). rest of their life in prison. Usually a judge orders that they spend
minimum term in prison (15 years) with the rest on “licence”.
It seems strange that the law what is often said to be the most serious offence, has
not been made democratically by Parliament. Judge cannot give another sentence. Still mandatory life sentence even if
mercy killing. Life sentence is given to those who kill out of compassion
The law on AR and MR is developed in cases on an ad hoc basis (as and when needed)
(mercy), hitmen and serial killers. Lack of variance seems unjust. Criminal
means there may be points/issues still to be clarified/made.
Justice Act 2003- judges decide the time served in prison- can give whole
The LC Report 2006 recommended overhauling the law on murder and putting it into life terms- usually 30 years for killing police, racial or other hate motive
a modern statute with clear and accessible language and a tiered approach to etc. Firearms 30. Usual minimum is 15. LC Report 2006 recommends
homicide wholesale reform of murder. Replace murder with 2 tiers.
7) Duress is not available as a defence for murder or
attempted murder- it is unfair and inconsistent that
3) The all or nothing effect of using self- defence as a defence to
duress is available to all crimes except murder and att
M.HOL said that D was expected to be a hero and lay
Evaluation of murder murder
down their life for others in R v Howe- completely
unrealistic. Calls for reform since 1975 (Lynch) but
A def who uses excessive force in self- defence and commits a murder,
nothing done. Cases like Gotts and Wilson (16 and 13 yrs cannot rely on the defence, is convicted of murder and will get the
olds) got no defences when forced to commit att M by mandatory life sentence. This is the case even though use of some force
abusive parents- law fails to protect young vulnerable. was justified.
6) The development of oblique This seems harsh and unfair and is out of line with other defences like
intention in the common law, intoxication or diminished responsibility.
has been problematic- Jury can
find that a defendant had 5) D’s motive is not considered when deciding Some including the LC (2006) argue that self-defence should be a partial
oblique intention if they knew innocent/guilt defence for murder in these circumstances- this has not been adopted.
that death or serious injury was
a virtually certain consequence The jury does not consider motive (reason why
of their conduct- test is set out D killed) only intention (whether they had 4) The serious harm rule- the facCalt that intention to cause GBH (serious harm) + victim
in Woollin- this concept blurs direct or oblique intention to kill or cause dies, can be the MR for MURDER!
the lines between direct
GBH).
intention and recklessness. It Defendant is guilty of murder if they have intention to cause GBH and the victim dies. They
has been problematic- it took
This means that the serial killer and mercy may not have even realised that there was any risk of death- but they will still be found
the courts years to develop it
and get the test right (Hyam,
killer are treated the same way which seems liable of murder (very serious offence) and get the life sentence. * Some argue that with
Hancock, Nedrick and Woollin)- harsh and unjust. However judges are the development of “implied malice”, MR and AR do not match/correlate. Def has the MR
Seem appropriate to use it in increasingly prepared to consider motive when for a NFO, but the AR is death/murder. This is constructed liability (a bit like for S47 and
Matthew & Alleyne setting the minimum term- e.g Inglis only got 5 S20 NFO’s) and goes against basic legal principles.
years in prison.
This can be seen as a positive as the law (precedents) can be changed relatively The judge has no choice of sentence- they must pass a life sentence-
quickly (on appeal) to reflect changes in technology and society as shown in some are critical of this as it rarely means that the defendant spends the
Malcherek & Steele (considered switching of life support). rest of their life in prison. Usually a judge orders that they spend
minimum term in prison (15 years) with the rest on “licence”.
It seems strange that the law what is often said to be the most serious offence, has
not been made democratically by Parliament. Judge cannot give another sentence. Still mandatory life sentence even if
mercy killing. Life sentence is given to those who kill out of compassion
The law on AR and MR is developed in cases on an ad hoc basis (as and when needed)
(mercy), hitmen and serial killers. Lack of variance seems unjust. Criminal
means there may be points/issues still to be clarified/made.
Justice Act 2003- judges decide the time served in prison- can give whole
The LC Report 2006 recommended overhauling the law on murder and putting it into life terms- usually 30 years for killing police, racial or other hate motive
a modern statute with clear and accessible language and a tiered approach to etc. Firearms 30. Usual minimum is 15. LC Report 2006 recommends
homicide wholesale reform of murder. Replace murder with 2 tiers.
7) Duress is not available as a defence for murder or
attempted murder- it is unfair and inconsistent that
3) The all or nothing effect of using self- defence as a defence to
duress is available to all crimes except murder and att
M.HOL said that D was expected to be a hero and lay
Evaluation of murder murder
down their life for others in R v Howe- completely
unrealistic. Calls for reform since 1975 (Lynch) but
A def who uses excessive force in self- defence and commits a murder,
nothing done. Cases like Gotts and Wilson (16 and 13 yrs cannot rely on the defence, is convicted of murder and will get the
olds) got no defences when forced to commit att M by mandatory life sentence. This is the case even though use of some force
abusive parents- law fails to protect young vulnerable. was justified.
6) The development of oblique This seems harsh and unfair and is out of line with other defences like
intention in the common law, intoxication or diminished responsibility.
has been problematic- Jury can
find that a defendant had 5) D’s motive is not considered when deciding Some including the LC (2006) argue that self-defence should be a partial
oblique intention if they knew innocent/guilt defence for murder in these circumstances- this has not been adopted.
that death or serious injury was
a virtually certain consequence The jury does not consider motive (reason why
of their conduct- test is set out D killed) only intention (whether they had 4) The serious harm rule- the facCalt that intention to cause GBH (serious harm) + victim
in Woollin- this concept blurs direct or oblique intention to kill or cause dies, can be the MR for MURDER!
the lines between direct
GBH).
intention and recklessness. It Defendant is guilty of murder if they have intention to cause GBH and the victim dies. They
has been problematic- it took
This means that the serial killer and mercy may not have even realised that there was any risk of death- but they will still be found
the courts years to develop it
and get the test right (Hyam,
killer are treated the same way which seems liable of murder (very serious offence) and get the life sentence. * Some argue that with
Hancock, Nedrick and Woollin)- harsh and unjust. However judges are the development of “implied malice”, MR and AR do not match/correlate. Def has the MR
Seem appropriate to use it in increasingly prepared to consider motive when for a NFO, but the AR is death/murder. This is constructed liability (a bit like for S47 and
Matthew & Alleyne setting the minimum term- e.g Inglis only got 5 S20 NFO’s) and goes against basic legal principles.
years in prison.
