Murder

Front 1

Year and day rule

Back 1

Causation
Before its repeal with s.38 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1999, the year and day rule would presume an act or omission not to have caused a death if occurring more than a year and a day after the act or omission

Front 2

Absence of a body

Back 2

Causation
AG v Ball (D claimed mother had committed suicide and he dumped her in the sea, bloodstained hatchet found at home and blood in rooms, held enough evidence to allow to go to jury)

Front 3

Jurisdiction of an Irish court

Back 3

Offences Against a Person Act, 1861 gives the Irish courts jurisdiction to try an Irish citizen for murder regardless of where it occured

Front 4

Mens rea

Back 4

S. 4 of Criminal Justice Act 1964
(1) Where a person kills another, won't be murder unless intent to kill or cause serious injury
(2) Presumption that accused intended natural and probable consequence of action

Front 5

CL offence of murder, statutory changes

Back 5

1) A year and a day rule abolished
2) Mens rea now established in statute
3) Requirement of 'sound memory and age of discretion' which is currently 10 years of age as per Criminal Justice Act 2006

Front 6

Novus Actus Interviniens (NAI)

Back 6

Will break the chain of causation between the act or omission and the death
1) Medical treatment
2) Neglect by the victim
- Also egg shell rule
3) 3rd person interference

Front 7

Penalty and sentencing

Back 7

Indictable offence which carries life sentence

Front 8

General principles of causation

Back 8

R v Pagett (D used pregnant girlfriend as shield during shooting with police. Started shooting at police who fired back in self-defence and killed girl. D convicted of manslaughter)
R v Hallett (argument near body of water. D hit deceased who became unconscious, D left leaving deceased slumped (but still alive). When D came back he had drowned. D still convicted of murder)

Front 9

Medical treatment as intervening cause (NAI)

Back 9

R v Smith (Fight at army barracks, soldier stabbed other soldier. Dropped twice on the way to the medics, who failed to notice that lung was punctured. Still convicted of murder)

R v Jordan (also stab wound. Admitted hospital. Wounds almost healed when negligent treatment caused phenomonia. Original wound was not critical and substantial cause of death so no murder here)
DPP v Davis (must contribute to death in more than minimal way)
R v Malcherek (two seperate victims in hospital on life support which where turned off. Test is where brain stem died)

Front 10

DPP v Dunne

Back 10

Victim shot in the head in parking lot. In vegetative state for two years. Doctor had after consultation with family agreed on non-resuscitation. Defence not allowed, still contributed to death in more than a minimal way

Front 11

Neglect by the victim

Back 11

R v Flynn (Victim died four days after assault without seeking medical assistance. Victim continued his normal life, unless victim does something unusual, behavior of victim won't exonerate the accused )
R v Blaue (victim stabbed. Jehovah's witness, refused blood transfusion. Egg shell rule. Wound still operative cause of death)
R v Halliday (D threatened wife who jumped out the window and died. Foreseeable so still murder)

Front 12

DPP v Doohan

Back 12

A inflicted a punishmentbeating on B intending that B would receive broken legs or arms; A said he didnot want B to be killed but wanted him so badly injured that he would behospitalised for a few weeks. The Court held that there was mens rea for murder.

Front 13

R v Nedrick

Back 13

Held grudge. Set mail box on fire. Small boy. Foreseeable that would happen so guilty.

Front 14

Defences which would reduce murder to manslaughter

Back 14

1) Provocation
2) Excessive use of force (only IE)
3) Diminished responsibility

Front 15

Criminal negligence

Back 15

# Only applies to manslaughter
# Applies to act/omission which would otherwise be legal had it not caused death.
# Objective test
# Involuntary manslaughter

Front 16

R v Adomako

Back 16

Sets out three stage test for criminal negligence:
1) Was there negligence present?
2) Was victim's death caused by accused's negligent act?
3) Did accuse by the way of acting deviate from the standard of care which reasonable would be expected from him?

Front 17

Types of manslaughter

Back 17

Voluntary (Actus reus and mens rea present but successfully argues any of the 3 defences)
Involuntary (criminal & dangerous act, criminal negligence or breach of duty)

Front 18

Criminal & dangerous act

Back 18

Involuntary manslaughter
AG v Crosbie and Meehan (leading IE case. To sustain manslaughter conviction, act causing death much be dangerous (objective test) and unlawful)
DPP v Hendley (act must also be deliberate)
DPP v Horgan (sets out 3 req's again:
1) Act must be recognized offence causing bodily harm
2) Act must be considered dangerous by an ordinary reasonable person
3) What is dangerous to be decided by objective standards

Front 19

Breaches of duty of care

Back 19

Involuntary manslaughter:
R v Stone & Dobinson (two accused failed to provide for dependent relative living with them. Even though social workers regularly visited them, did not notify about relative)