Notas de lectura
Murder and Intention
- Grado
- Institución
Lecture notes discussing murder and the intention behind it.
[Mostrar más]Vista previa 1 fuera de 2 páginas
Vista previa 1 fuera de 2 páginas
Añadir al carrito
Añadir al carrito
Vendedor
Seguir
kelseypearce
Vista previa del contenido
Lecture 1Murder & 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.
Los beneficios de comprar resúmenes en Stuvia estan en línea:
Garantiza la calidad de los comentarios
Compradores de Stuvia evaluaron más de 700.000 resúmenes. Así estas seguro que compras los mejores documentos!
Compra fácil y rápido
Puedes pagar rápidamente y en una vez con iDeal, tarjeta de crédito o con tu crédito de Stuvia. Sin tener que hacerte miembro.
Enfócate en lo más importante
Tus compañeros escriben los resúmenes. Por eso tienes la seguridad que tienes un resumen actual y confiable. Así llegas a la conclusión rapidamente!
Preguntas frecuentes
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
100% de satisfacción garantizada: ¿Cómo funciona?
Nuestra garantía de satisfacción le asegura que siempre encontrará un documento de estudio a tu medida. Tu rellenas un formulario y nuestro equipo de atención al cliente se encarga del resto.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller kelseypearce. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for $7.53. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
45,681 summaries were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now