7299796
Description
Mind Map by Yasmine King, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Yasmine King
almost 8 years ago
|
|
Murder
- Actus Reus
- 1. Killing Causing death
- Can be by an act or
omission
- Omission example R v Gibbons and
Proctor
- Omission example R v Gibbons and
Proctor
- The Act or Omission must have caused
V's death
- Factual Causation
- But For test
- R vPagget
- But for the defendant using his girlfriend as
a human shield she would not have died
- But for the defendant using his girlfriend as
a human shield she would not have died
- R v White
- But for the defendant posioning his mothers
drink she would have still died
- But for the defendant posioning his mothers
drink she would have still died
- R vPagget
- But For test
- Legal Causation
- Operative and substantial cause test
- R v Smith
- The wound was the operative cause of death
- The wound was the operative cause of death
- R v Smith
- Operative and substantial cause test
- Intervening
Acts
- Have to be sufficently serious and seperate
from D's conduct
- One of three things
- i) Actions of a third party
- such as bad medical treatment
- R v Jordan
- In order to break the chain the act must be papally wrong
(medical treatment)
- In order to break the chain the act must be papally wrong
(medical treatment)
- R v Jordan
- such as bad medical treatment
- ii) Victims own actions
- R V Roberts (did not
break chain)
- R v Williams (broke the chain)
- R V Dear (didn't break chain)
- R V Roberts (did not
break chain)
- iii) Natural but unpredictable
event
- Eg. Earthquake
- Eg. Earthquake
- i) Actions of a third party
- Thin Skull Rule
- R v Blaue
- R v Blaue
- Have to be sufficently serious and seperate
from D's conduct
- Factual Causation
- Can be by an act or
omission
- 2. Unlawful
- R v Martin
- They were shot in the back so the threat had passed.
so it was not self defence and unlawful
- They were shot in the back so the threat had passed.
so it was not self defence and unlawful
- R v Martin
- 3. Under the Queen's Peace
- civil Unrest is not a time of war
- DPP v Clegg
- DPP v Clegg
- civil Unrest is not a time of war
- 4. Reasonable person in
being
- Start of life
- Life begins when the baby is expelled from
the womb
- Attorney Generals reference (No 3 of 1994)
- Transfered malice cannot therfore be used on a foetus
- Transfered malice cannot therfore be used on a foetus
- Attorney Generals reference (No 3 of 1994)
- Life begins when the baby is expelled from
the womb
- End of life
- Life ends at Brain Stem death
- R v Malchrek and Steel
- Airedal NHS Trust V Bland
- life sustaining treatment can be withdrawn if it is in the
patents best interests
- And with permission from the court
- And with permission from the court
- life sustaining treatment can be withdrawn if it is in the
patents best interests
- R v Malchrek and Steel
- Life ends at Brain Stem death
- Start of life
- 1. Killing Causing death
- Mens
Rea
- Malice Aforethought either express or implied
- Express malice means D intends to kill
- Implied malice means D intends to cause GBH to another but
actually cause death
- DPP v Smith, GBH means really serious harm
- Vickers- intention to cause GBH is enough for the
jury to imply murder
- DPP v Smith, GBH means really serious harm
- With Direct or Indirect intention
- Direct intention - R v Mohan
- Indirect intention- Woolin
- Direct intention - R v Mohan
- Express malice means D intends to kill
- Also to be considered Coincidence and Transferred
Malice
- Malice Aforethought either express or implied
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.