Criminal Law Homicide

Front 1

Murder

Back 1

AR-D causes v, a human being, to die during peacetime
MR-an intention to kill or cause GBH-Moloney

Front 2

Cunningham

Back 2

Implied malice (intention to commit serious harm or gbh) is sufficient MR for murder

Front 3

Woollin

Back 3

jury cannot state intention unless it feels sure that death or GBH was a virtual certainty barring some unforeseen event as a result of the accused's actions and that the accused appreciated such was the case

Front 4

Voluntary manslaughter- D has the mens rea for murder but there are the 3 partial defences

Back 4

Diminished responsibility
Provocation
Suicide pacts

Front 5

Diminished Responsibility
s2 Homicide Act 1957

Back 5

D must prove
abnormality of mind
from a specified cause
such abnormality substantially impaired D's responsibility

Front 6

Byrne

Back 6

abnormality of mind is a state of mind so different from that of ordinar human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal

Front 7

Dietschmann

Back 7

did the underlying condition substantially impair D's responsibility for the killing

Front 8

Ahluwahlia

Back 8

includes depression

Front 9

Hobson

Back 9

includes battered woman syndrome

Front 10

Sanderson

Back 10

includes mental illness

Front 11

Diminished responsibility
Section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 new diminished responsibility defence

Back 11

Abnormality of mental functioning

Specified Medical Condition

Substantial impairment of responsibility
• D’s understanding of the nature of his conduct,
• D’s ability to form rational judgment or
• D’s ability to exercise self-control.

Front 12

Provocation s3 Homicide Act 1957

Back 12

provocative conduct-things said or done
D lost self control
Reasonable man would have done what D did

Front 13

Duffy

Back 13

D's loss of self control has to be sudden and temporary so D was not master of his mind

Front 14

Humphrey

Back 14

loss of self control was breaking of the camels back

Front 15

Morhall

Back 15

addiction to glue sniffing was a characteristic of particular relevance

Front 16

Holley

Back 16

jury should be directed to apply a uniform objective standard of the degree of self control to be expected of an ordinary person of D's age and sex with ordinary powers of self control.
prosecution must disprove provocation beyond reasonable doubt

Front 17

Camplin

Back 17

D's age and physical characteristics should be taken into account

Front 18

Smith (Morgan)

Back 18

Certain characteristics of the defendant, beyond simply their age and sex, could be taken into account when applying the objective test.

Front 19

Provocation replaced by Sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Back 19

loss of Self control
caused by a Qualifying Trigger

Front 20

s55 CJA qualifying triggers

Back 20

D had a fear of serious violence from V against D or another person s.55(3)

there was a thing or were things either said or done or both which constituted
circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused D to have a
justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (s.55(4))

Front 21

these triggers will apply unless

Back 21

D has incited the trigger as an excuse to use violence

the reason for the loss of self-control is sexual infidelity (s.55(6))

Front 22

Involuntary Manslaughter

Back 22

An unlawful homicide without the Mens Rea for murder
-reckless manslaughter-less than Woollin intention
-unlawful act manslaughter
-gross negligence manslaughter

Front 23

Lidar

Back 23

for reckless manslaughter- prosecution has to prove foresight of at least serious harm with a determination nevertheless to run it

Front 24

Stone & Dobinson

Back 24

D has to actually foresee the risk or recklessly disregard a risk to V's health and welfare

Front 25

Unlawful Act manslaughter
4 Requirements
Lowe
Lamb
Church

Back 25

-D does an act
-that act must be unlawful
-that act must be dangerous, all sober and resonable people would inevitably recognise such. it must subject the other person to the risk of at least serious harm
-The act causes V's death

Front 26

Gross negligence manslaughter

Back 26

5 stage test

Front 27

Adomako

Back 27

D owes V a duty of care
breach caused death
breach is serious enough to be a crime

Front 28

Mark

Back 28

D breaches that duty-objective standard

Front 29

Misra and Srivastava

Back 29

breach involves an obvious risk of death