Murder
The mens rea of murder, as outlined previously, is a product of common law.
The most important statutory provision is section 1 of the Homicide Act 1957, which states: Where a
person kills in the course or furtherance of some other offence, the killing shall not amount to
murder unless done with the same malice aforethought (express or implied) as is required for a
killing to amount to murder when not done in the course or furtherance of another offence.
For the purposes of the foregoing subsection, a killing done in the course or for the purpose of
resisting an officer of justice, or of resisting or avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or of effecting
or assisting an escape or rescue from legal custody, shall be treated as a killing in the course or
furtherance of another offence.
The mens rea of murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This was established by
Cunningham,21 where the House of Lords upheld the conviction of a defendant who killed a victim
by hitting him on the head with a chair.
, In Gurpinar Lord Thomas CJ declined to speculate on whether ‘the loss of self-control had to be a
total loss or whether some loss of self-control was sufficient’. The courts will need to answer that
question at some point. In doing so it is important to recall that to be guilty of murder the defendant
must have intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This means that loss of self-control cannot
require that the defendant has completely lost control of her actions or was so angry that she was
not aware of what she was doing, because if either of these were true, then the defendant would
not have the mens rea or actus reus of murder, in which case there would be no need to have the
defence.
In Dawes Lord Judge CJ explained:
Provided there was a loss of control, it does not matter whether the loss was sudden or not. A
reaction to circumstances of extreme gravity may be delayed. Different individuals in different
situations do not react identically, nor respond immediately.
To be a qualifying trigger the thing said or done must fall within one of the three categories in
section 55. In brief these are:(1)Fear of serious violence.(2)An extremely provocative act.(3)A
combination of a fear of violence and an extremely provocative act.
The mens rea of murder, as outlined previously, is a product of common law.
The most important statutory provision is section 1 of the Homicide Act 1957, which states: Where a
person kills in the course or furtherance of some other offence, the killing shall not amount to
murder unless done with the same malice aforethought (express or implied) as is required for a
killing to amount to murder when not done in the course or furtherance of another offence.
For the purposes of the foregoing subsection, a killing done in the course or for the purpose of
resisting an officer of justice, or of resisting or avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or of effecting
or assisting an escape or rescue from legal custody, shall be treated as a killing in the course or
furtherance of another offence.
The mens rea of murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This was established by
Cunningham,21 where the House of Lords upheld the conviction of a defendant who killed a victim
by hitting him on the head with a chair.
, In Gurpinar Lord Thomas CJ declined to speculate on whether ‘the loss of self-control had to be a
total loss or whether some loss of self-control was sufficient’. The courts will need to answer that
question at some point. In doing so it is important to recall that to be guilty of murder the defendant
must have intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This means that loss of self-control cannot
require that the defendant has completely lost control of her actions or was so angry that she was
not aware of what she was doing, because if either of these were true, then the defendant would
not have the mens rea or actus reus of murder, in which case there would be no need to have the
defence.
In Dawes Lord Judge CJ explained:
Provided there was a loss of control, it does not matter whether the loss was sudden or not. A
reaction to circumstances of extreme gravity may be delayed. Different individuals in different
situations do not react identically, nor respond immediately.
To be a qualifying trigger the thing said or done must fall within one of the three categories in
section 55. In brief these are:(1)Fear of serious violence.(2)An extremely provocative act.(3)A
combination of a fear of violence and an extremely provocative act.
