Lethal Offences Against The Person

Front 1

Murder (defined in the Homicide Act 1957)

Back 1

Subject to three exceptions (see murder is committed, where a person Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);

unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);

any reasonable creature (human being);

in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs

under the Queen's Peace

with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

Front 2

Murder necessity

Back 2

The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.

Front 3

Causation for murder

Back 3

The act or omission must be a substantial cause of death, but it need not be the sole or main cause of death. It must have "more than minimally negligibly or trivially contributed to the death" - Lord Woolf MR in R v HM Coroner for Inner London

Front 4

Interning Acts

Back 4

Must be such that it becomes the sole cause of the victims death:

1- death resulting from ‘normal’ medical treatments eg treating the criminal injury

2- third- party interventions which were not reasonably seen by a 3rd person

3- an act of god/ nature

Front 5

‘Egg-shell’ skull rule

Back 5

The defendant must take his victim as he finds him under the 'egg-shell skull' rule: R v LeBrun (1991) 4 All ER 673. As a result, any pre-dispositions or inherent weaknesses or vulnerabilities of the victim are deemed irrelevant.

Front 6

Partial defences to murder

Back 6

Partial defences, are different to complete defences, such as self-defence, as they bear all the ingredients of murder but if successfully argued, reduce the offence to an act of voluntary manslaughter not murder. They are: diminished responsibility, loss of control and killing in pursuance of a suicide pact

Front 7

Loss of control section 54: coroners and justice act 2009

Back 7

3 essential elements

1- killing due to loss of control, not desire for revenge

2- has a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence)

3- things said or done to have a justifiable sense of being wronged (eg anger trigger)

* objective test of similar to D’ age, sex and average degrees of self restraint

Front 8

Diminished responsibility 4-stage test s. 52 coroners and justice act 2009

Back 8

Whether the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning

If so, whether it had arisen from a recognised medical condition

If so, whether it had substantially impaired his ability either to understand the nature of his conduct or to form a rational judgment or to exercise self-control

If so, whether it provided an explanation for his conduct

Front 9

Voluntary intoxication - would it count as diminished responsibility?

Back 9

Voluntary acute intoxication cannot found diminished responsibility - R v Dowds (Stephen Andrew) [2012] EWCA Crim 281. In cases where a defendant who suffered from a mental abnormality was also intoxicated the correct approach is for the jury to ignore the effects of intoxication and to ask whether the defendant's other condition(s) of mental abnormality substantially impaired his responsibility for the killing - R v Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10

Front 10

Suicide pact

Back 10

A person, acting in pursuance of a suicide pact between him and another, who kills the other or is a party to the other being killed by a third person, is guilty of manslaughter and not murder (Section 4 of the Homicide Act 1957).

Front 11

Manslaughter 1 of 3 ways

Back 11

1. Killing with intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, such as 1. Loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact = partial, special defence

2- gross negligence manslaughter- conduct that was grossly negligent (4 stage process) D had a duty of care

3- unlawful act manslaughter & conduct taking the form of an unlawful act (which is voluntary/ involuntary)

Front 12

Unlawful act manslaughter

Back 12

The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted.

Dangerousness

An objective test must be applied to the question as to whether an accused's unlawful act, from which death results, was dangerous - DPP v Newbury (Neil) [1977] Crim. L.R. 359. In judging whether the act was dangerous the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger.