7726740
Murder
- 'The unlawful killing of a person in being,
under the Queen's Peace, with malice
aforethought, express or implied'.
- Unlawful killing of a person in
being, under the Queen's Peace
- The killing must be unlawful.
- It is lawful if done in
self-defence or in
the prevention of a
crime.
- Can be a voluntary
act or omission, but
it must cause the
death of V
- It is lawful if done in
self-defence or in
the prevention of a
crime.
- D must kill
a person in
being
- V must have a separate
existence from the
mother and have an
independent circulation
- Therefore killing a
foetus is not murder:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S
REFERENCE (NO.3 OF
1994) (1997)
- Therefore killing a
foetus is not murder:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S
REFERENCE (NO.3 OF
1994) (1997)
- A person who is
brain dead is not
a person in being:
MALCHEREK
- V must have a separate
existence from the
mother and have an
independent circulation
- Under the Queen's Peace
- Killing of an enemy in the
course of war is not
murder.
- The killing of a
prisoner of war
would be sufficient
for the actus reus
of murder
- The killing of a
prisoner of war
would be sufficient
for the actus reus
of murder
- Killing of an enemy in the
course of war is not
murder.
- The killing must be unlawful.
- Malice aforethought, express or
implied by law
- Intend to kill (express
malice aforethought)
- Intend to cause GBH
(implied malice
aforethought)
- GBH means 'really serious
harm': DPP v SMITH or
'serious harm': SAUNDERS
- GBH means 'really serious
harm': DPP v SMITH or
'serious harm': SAUNDERS
- Can be guilty of murder
even if D did not intend to
kill: VICKERS
- Cannot have the mens rea to kill
or cause GBH to a foetus as it
doesn't have a separate
existence from the mother:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S
REFERENCE (NO.3 OF 1994)
(1997)
- D may directly intend to kill or
do GBH: MOHAN
- D may indirectly kill
or cause GBH:
WOOLIN
- Intend to kill (express
malice aforethought)
- D can be guilty if he intended to
commit a similar crime but
against a different V (Transferred
Malice): ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S
REFERENCE (NO.3 OF 1994) (1997)
- The actus reus and mens rea
must be present at the same
time
- Exception to this coincidence
principle is where the actus
reus is part of a larger
transaction
- Will be sufficient if D forms
the mens rea at any point
during that transaction:
THABO MELI
- Will be sufficient if D forms
the mens rea at any point
during that transaction:
THABO MELI
- Exception to this coincidence
principle is where the actus
reus is part of a larger
transaction
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.