Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Define: Murder |
A person is guilty of murder if they kill or are party to the killing of a reasonable creature under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought implied or expressed |
|
|
M.1 Unlawful Killing of a reasonable creature Under the Queens Peace |
Unlawful can be classed as complete and valid justification. If the killing is done during a war this isn't classed as they weren't under the queen's peace 'Killing' meaning cause of the death Attorney General reference N.3 ' A reasonable creature is a person who is independent of their mothers. eg not fetus. Doctors are protected by turning off life support |
|
|
M.2 Causation |
Factual Cause - but for White, Pagett Legal Cause - More than a minimal cause of the death Cato Intervening Act - Third Party ( Jordan), Thin Skull (Blaue), Victim own act (Roberts) |
|
|
M.3 Express Malice |
Intentionally committed the act. |
|
|
M.4 Implied Malice |
Intentionally committed an act of GBH. It was virtually certain to happen as a consequence of D act or omission and D realised that this was the case. (R v Matthews and Alleyne) |
|
|
DR.1 Define
|
A person can't be found guilty of murder if they are suffering from an abnormality of mental function
|
|
|
DR.2 Abnormality of Mental Function
|
(a) arose from a recognised medical condition, (b) substantially impaired D’s ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), (c) provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. |
|
|
DR.3 Arose from a recognised medical condition
|
Recognised on the WHO ICD 10 list Psychopath (R V Byrne) Battered Wives Syndrome ( R v Thornton) Paranoid Personality Disorder (R v Martin) |
|
|
DR.4 Intoxication and Drugs
|
Voluntary intoxication alone isn't an abnormality (R v Dica) If D can prove that he still could have killed even if he wasn't intoxication defence can be used. The abnormality of the mind caused the killing (R v DIETSCHMAN) The jury must decide whether there was substantial impairment. The jury should the effect of any alcohol consumed. Where brain damage has occurred as a result of the syndrome, the jury may be more likely to conclude that it was a substantial impairment (R v Wood) |
|
|
LC. 1 Define
|
D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control,
(b) the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger (c) a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D. |
|
|
LC.2 Qualifying Trigger |
The loss of control need not be sudden (R v AHLUWALIA) 1.A fear of serious violence to the defendant (R v Clegg) 2. Anger Circumstance of extreme grace character (Mohammad Faruk) A justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (R v Morhall) Subjective test |
|
|
LC.3 Sexual Infidelity/ Revenge |
A number of features in a case are in play causing a loss of control, then evidence of sexual infidelity may be admitted as a contributing feature so defence can be used but can't be hard solely (R v Clinton) Subjective test Revenge R v Bailie |
|
|
LC.4 Same-sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances |
(R v Bowen) Low IQ did not possess a characteristic or circumstance that would make him less able to withstand threats and pressure |
|
|
LC.5 Intoxication |
Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the rules on voluntary intoxication applied (R v Ashmelash) |
