Murder

Frage	Antworten
Lord Coke	Defined murder as: 'the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King's (or Queen's) Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.
Actus Reus of Murder	- The defendant killed - A reasonable creature in being - Under the Queen's Peace - Unlawfully
Mens Rea of Murder	- express aforethought OR - implied aforethought
Gibbins and Proctor (1918)	Facts: Father and stepmother failed to feed their child resulting in her death. Principle: Murder can be committed through an omission.
Attorney-General's Reference (No3 of 1994)	Facts: Defendant stabbed his girlfriend numerous times whilst she was 23 weeks pregnant. The child was born prematurely but died as a result of the premature birth. Principle: The HoL stated that he could not have the mens rea for murder as at the time the child was not a reasonable person in being, however, as the child died after birth the relevant offence was manslaughter.
Malcherek (1981)	Facts: The defendant stabbed his wife, as a result she was put on a life-support machine. As she was found to be brain dead the doctors turned the machine off. Principle: The doctors turning the machine off does not break the chain of causation, therefore, the defendant was convicted of murder.
Under the Queen's Peace	Killing an enemy of war does not amount to the actus reus of murder.
Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967	Defence of prevention of crime. A person may use reasonable force in the circumstances in order to prevent crime.
Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Reasonable Force)	When considering whether the force used was reasonable the following should be considered: - the person may not be able to weigh up the exact measure of necessary force - evidence that the person only did what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary
Clegg (1995)	Facts: The defendant was a solider on duty at a checkpoint. A car was asked to stop but did not and continued to speed through the checkpoint. Clegg fired shots after the car had drove past the checkpoint. Principle: The force was deemed as excessive as it was not used in self-defence as the car had already passed the checkpoint. The CoA upheld his conviction for murder.
Martin (2002)	Facts: The defendant shot 2 burglars as they were leaving his farmhouse. 1 died. Principle: The force used was excessive and the defendant's personality disorder could not be considered when considering self-defence. Therefore, he was convicted of murder (this was later reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility).
Beckford (1988)	Facts: Defendant was a police officer in Jamaica. When attending a house, a man ran out and the defendant believed he had a gun so shot and killed him. He did not have a gun. Principle: The defendant should be judged on the facts as he genuinely believed them to be. Therefore, his defence of self-defence was accepted.
Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Householder Cases)	As amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The degree of force used in cases of householders defending their property will be reasonable as long as it is not 'grossly disproportionate.
Re A (2000)	Facts: Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins. Mary was being kept alive by Jodie. If they were not separated they would both die. If they were separated Jodie may survive but Mary would die. Doctors wanted to separate the twins, the parents did not. Principle: The doctors could operate based on the defence of necessity, this meant that the death of Mary was lawful.
CP v Cica (2014)	Facts: A mother drank excessively whilst pregnant resulting in the child being born with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The mother was charged under s23 of the OAPA 1861 (maliciously administering poison to endanger life). Principle: As the child was a foetus at the time, the mother could not have the relevant mens rea for the offence as the offence needed to be directed at a person.
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996	Abolished the rule that: if a person died more than a year and a day after the defendant had caused harm resulting in the death of the victim the defendant could not be charged with murder.
Express Malice Aforethought	The defendant had the intention to kill.
Implied Malice Aforethought	The defendant had the intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
Vickers (1957)	Facts: Vickers broke into a sweet shop and repeatedly punched and kicked the shop owner when she came to investigate. Principle: It was sufficient that the defendant intended to cause GBH in order to have the required mens rea for murder. Therefore, he was convicted of murder.
Cunningham (1981)	Facts: The defendant repeatedly hit the victim with a chair resulting in his death. Principle: The HoL confirmed that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm was sufficient for the mens rea of murder.
DPP v Smith (1961)	Facts: A police officer jumped onto the defendant's bonnet to prevent him driving off with stolen goods. The defendant zigzagged to get the police officer off the car, he fell and was killed. Principle: grievous bodily harm means really serious harm. If the defendant intended this they could be guilty of murder. The defendant's murder conviction was reinstated.
Direct Intent	The defendant intended that his actions would result in death or grievous bodily harm.
Oblique Intent	The defendant's main aim was not to cause death or grievous bodily harm but as a result of his actions this occurred.
Woollin (1998)	Facts: The defendant threw his baby towards his pram but missed. The baby suffered head injuries and died. Principle: The jury should not find the necessary intention unless death or serious harm was a virtual certainty of the defendant's actions and the defendant appreciated this. The defendant's conviction of murder was reduced to manslaughter.
Gnango (2011)	Facts: Gnango and another man were shooting at each other in the street. The other man shot and killed a passer by. Principle: Gnango was guilty of the murder of the passer by through the doctrine of transferred malice as through engaging in a 'shoot off' with the other man he was aiding and abetting his own murder.
Inglis (2010)	Facts: The defendant was the mother of the victim, who was injured in a fight and his injuries were worsened as he fell out of the ambulance. As a result he was disfigured and was dependent on care for the rest of his life. The defendant injected him with heroin and killed him to put him out of his misery. Principle: She was convicted with murder and the court had to impose a mandatory life sentence.
Bland (1993)	Facts: Bland was in a vegetative state as a result of injured incurred as a result of the Hillsborough Disaster. Doctors wished to withdraw artificial feeding. Principle: The HoL held that if it was in the best interests of the patient the doctors could withdraw treatment even if this would result in the death of the patient.
Purdy v DPP (2009)	Facts: Mrs Purdy suffered from multiple sclerosis and wanted clarification on whether her husband would face prosecution for helping her travel to a county where assisted suicide was lawful. Principle: The HoL stated that the Director of Public Prosecutions had to issue guidance on this point as per section 2(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
Director of Public Prosecutions Policy Guidance Statement	- Was it in the public interest to prosecute? - Each case considered on it's own facts and merits - Motives of the relative - Capacity of the victim - Age of the victim
Mandatory Life Sentence	For a conviction of murder the court must impose a life sentence on the defendant.

Nächster

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Natalie Lofthouse vor mehr als 8 Jahre