Created by disco.monkey
over 10 years ago
|
||
Question | Answer |
What are the three main parts to the definition of murder? | 1)unlawful killing 2)reasonable person in being 3)with malice aforethought |
What is meant by 'unlawful killing'? | A killing which is not recognized as justified, such as self-defense, prevention of crime or war. |
Can an 'unlawful killing' be the result of an omission? | Yes |
Which case shows a death due to an omission? | 'Stone and Dobinson [1977]' |
What is meant by the 'reasonable person in being'? | The victim was not in the womb or at the end of their life (brain dead) |
'AG Reference No.3 [1997]' stated... | If harm was intended to the feotus, then the defendant would be criminally liable. |
Are Doctors exempt from homicide if they choose to turn off a life support machine? | Yes |
Which case is used to illustrate this? | 'Malcherek and Steel [1981] |
Which case is used to show legal causation? | 'R v. Pagett [1983]' |
Which case is used to show Factual Causation? | 'R v. White [1910]' |
Does the defendant need to be the operating and substantial cause of death? | Yes |
What does this principle mean? | That the defendants actions were substantial and more than minimal |
Which case is used to show this? | 'R v. Cato [1976]' |
What is meant by the thin skull rule? | Take your victim as you find them |
Which case is used to illustrate this? | 'R v. Blaue [1975]' |
Is it possible for the defendant to be acquitted if the chain of causation is broken? | Yes |
What does the case of 'R v. Jordan [1956]' show? | That the chain can be broken by a new independent act. |
It is unusual for medical treatment to break the chain of causation, which cases show this? | 'R v. Smith [1959]' 'R v. Cheshire [1991]' |
Can the chain of causation be broken by the victims actions? | Yes |
Which case shows the victims actions breaking the chain of causation? | 'R v. Williams [1991]' |
In which case do the victims actions not break the chain of causation? | 'R v. Roberts [1971]' |
What is the Mens Rea for murder? | Malice Aforethought express or implied |
What does this mean? | The intention to kill or to commit GBH |
What is meant by 'Aforethought' | That the intention was not formed after the act had occurred. |
Is it correct that if neither of the intentions are met, then the defendant is not liable for murder? | Yes |
Which case showed this? Which case confirmed this? | 'R v. Vickers [1957]' 'R v. Cunningham [1982]' |
What is meant by 'Foresight of Consequences'? | The defendant could foresee that their actions would kill the victim. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.