Murder
Murder was defined by Lord Coke as the “unlawful killing of a reasonable being under the King’s peace
with malice aforethought, expressed or implied.”
AR: Killing in self-defence is lawful
Unlawful killing – R v Malcherek- Held the turning off life support when V was brain stem dead was held
as a lawful killing
Re A- lawful killing as it was in the best interest.
Reasonable being-
R v Poulton- A human is one which is “expelled” from the womb
Under the King’s peace- R v Blackman- the killing of a seriously injured person who holds no threat was a
killing under the King’s peace.
Causation-
R v Pagett/ R v Smith
Malice aforethought, expressed or implied
Expressed malice- intention to kill- mohan/ woolin
Woolin- Did D foresee risk of death and Was death virtually certain from his actions.
In Cunningham where D appealed, conviction upheld based on rulings in R v Vickers
Implied malice- intention to cause GBH DPP v Smith/ R v Vickers where the jury were directed that if D
caused GBH this would be sufficed for murder.
Partial defences- Murder to manslaughter- max 3-16 years
Diminished responsibility under s52 coroners and justice act 2009
Abnormality of mental functioning by a recognised medical condition which causes substantial
impairment, affecting D’s ability to form rational judgement, exercise self-control, understand nature of
their conduct. Must also explain D’s conduct (act or omission) in killing
R v Byrne Lord Parker defined an abnormality as “a state of mind so different from that of ordinary
beings than a reasonable man would call it abnormal”
Abnormality must be from a recognised medical condition WHO, R v Hobson- held “battered wife
syndrome “is included
R v Golds- held substantial means “weighty or important”- merely trivial does not count
,R v Dietschmann- D's abnormality was more than minimal cause of injury, though alcoholism is involved,
Jury can set it aside
Explains D’s act or omission in killing
“But for” D’s abnormality would D have carried out the conduct – R v White
Was D’s abnormality a significant contributory factor in D carrying out the conduct- R v Smith
It is on defence to prove on balance of probabilities.
Loss of Control
Under s54/55 coroners and justice act 2009
R v Jewell Loss of control- “loss of ability to act with considerable judgement or normal powers of
reasoning”
R v Ahluwalia held loss of control need not be sudden, Jury can take “cumulative impacts” into account
S55 sets out qualifying triggers
S55(3)- D must have a fear of serious violence from V. This would be a subjective test; fear does not
need to be reasonable but must be genuine.
R v Dawes Held D cannot rely on defence of loss of control if incited the situation or used it as an excuse
to use violence after.
S55(4) “things said/done that explain circumstances of an extremely grave character and cause him to
have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged”
R v Mohamed- own perception is irrelevant
R v Davies- things said or done need not be from victim
AG for Jersey v Holley held sexual infidelity cannot be the basis of claim but can be context for other
factors to present an extremely grave character
S54 (1)( c ) Objective test- “ a person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self -
restraint and in the same circumstance of D have reacted same or similarly”
R v Asmelash- Jury should disregard intoxication and apply reasonable man test as if sober
Unlawful act manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
D must commit unlawful act which is objectively dangerous, causing death, D must have MR for unlawful
act
R v Lamb- Act must be unlawful
,R v Franklin- A civil wrong isn’t enough
R v Lowe- Omission doesn’t constitute unlawful act manslaughter
Objectively dangerous
Would a sober and reasonable person realise the risk of some harm- R v Church
R v Larkin- No need to realise serious harm or specific harm suffered
R v Goodfellow- Act can be aimed at property/ arson
R v Dawson- Must be a risk of physical harm, fear is not enough
Causation
Normal rules of causation
R v Roberts- Is victim response to threat reasonable and foreseeable, therefore direct link between
assault and death
Novus actus interveniens, V self- injecting or V’s own actions can break the chain of causation – R v
Kennedy
Mens Rea
DPP v Newbury and Jones - D must have mens rea for unlawful act, it is not necessary to prove that D
foresaw any harm from his or her act
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Requires negligence and results in death
Can be an act or an omission unlike involuntary manslaughter
In R v Adomako Lord Mackay held the existence of a duty of care must be established by D to victim.
Caparo v Dickman can be established if there is an omission but if there is an obvious risk of death a duty
of care is established R v Robison
Lord Atkins neighbour principle “take reasonable care to not injury your neighbour”
R v Edwards- Parents owed a duty of care to their children by allowing them to play on railways
R v Wacker- Not relevant that V is party to an illegal act
Breach of duty- Nettleship v Weston, Bolam v Friern Barnett Hospital (2 professional questions)
, Causation- normal rules apply, did the breach cause death
R v Kennedy-V voluntarily self-administered drug without pressure from D. Broke chain of causation.
R v Broughton- At the time of the breach there must be a serious and obvious risk of death and it must
be reasonably foreseeable that the breach gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death.
Gross negligence- R v Adomako defined gross negligence as where “D’s conduct is so bad in all
circumstances to be judged criminal”
R v Bateman held negligence must be” GROSS” involving a disregard for life and safety to others and
amounts to a crime
Risk of Death- R v Misra and Srivista
Must be a risk to life of individuals who are owed a duty of care, judged objectively, doesn’t matter if D
didn’t foresee risk.
Property Offences: Theft triable either way 7 years
S1 Theft Act 1968
S(2) Dishonest S(3) appropriation of S(4) property S(5)belonging to another S(6) with intention to
permanently deprive
S(3) defines appropriation: R v Morris held that the assumption of only a right of the owner is sufficient
for appropriation
R v Gomez: Appropriation exists where there is consent, even if consent is by deception.
R v Hinks- appropriation exists even where there is a gift
S(4) defines property as “Money, real or personal property, things in action, other intangible property”
R v Welsh- bodily fluids are property
Oxford v Moss- confidential information is not property for the purpose of this act. Compare and
contrast for AO3
R v Akbar- property was deemed an actual item as opposed to information
R v Kohn- wrote cheques to pay off personal debt, held D was stealing a thing in action.
Murder was defined by Lord Coke as the “unlawful killing of a reasonable being under the King’s peace
with malice aforethought, expressed or implied.”
AR: Killing in self-defence is lawful
Unlawful killing – R v Malcherek- Held the turning off life support when V was brain stem dead was held
as a lawful killing
Re A- lawful killing as it was in the best interest.
Reasonable being-
R v Poulton- A human is one which is “expelled” from the womb
Under the King’s peace- R v Blackman- the killing of a seriously injured person who holds no threat was a
killing under the King’s peace.
Causation-
R v Pagett/ R v Smith
Malice aforethought, expressed or implied
Expressed malice- intention to kill- mohan/ woolin
Woolin- Did D foresee risk of death and Was death virtually certain from his actions.
In Cunningham where D appealed, conviction upheld based on rulings in R v Vickers
Implied malice- intention to cause GBH DPP v Smith/ R v Vickers where the jury were directed that if D
caused GBH this would be sufficed for murder.
Partial defences- Murder to manslaughter- max 3-16 years
Diminished responsibility under s52 coroners and justice act 2009
Abnormality of mental functioning by a recognised medical condition which causes substantial
impairment, affecting D’s ability to form rational judgement, exercise self-control, understand nature of
their conduct. Must also explain D’s conduct (act or omission) in killing
R v Byrne Lord Parker defined an abnormality as “a state of mind so different from that of ordinary
beings than a reasonable man would call it abnormal”
Abnormality must be from a recognised medical condition WHO, R v Hobson- held “battered wife
syndrome “is included
R v Golds- held substantial means “weighty or important”- merely trivial does not count
,R v Dietschmann- D's abnormality was more than minimal cause of injury, though alcoholism is involved,
Jury can set it aside
Explains D’s act or omission in killing
“But for” D’s abnormality would D have carried out the conduct – R v White
Was D’s abnormality a significant contributory factor in D carrying out the conduct- R v Smith
It is on defence to prove on balance of probabilities.
Loss of Control
Under s54/55 coroners and justice act 2009
R v Jewell Loss of control- “loss of ability to act with considerable judgement or normal powers of
reasoning”
R v Ahluwalia held loss of control need not be sudden, Jury can take “cumulative impacts” into account
S55 sets out qualifying triggers
S55(3)- D must have a fear of serious violence from V. This would be a subjective test; fear does not
need to be reasonable but must be genuine.
R v Dawes Held D cannot rely on defence of loss of control if incited the situation or used it as an excuse
to use violence after.
S55(4) “things said/done that explain circumstances of an extremely grave character and cause him to
have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged”
R v Mohamed- own perception is irrelevant
R v Davies- things said or done need not be from victim
AG for Jersey v Holley held sexual infidelity cannot be the basis of claim but can be context for other
factors to present an extremely grave character
S54 (1)( c ) Objective test- “ a person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self -
restraint and in the same circumstance of D have reacted same or similarly”
R v Asmelash- Jury should disregard intoxication and apply reasonable man test as if sober
Unlawful act manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
D must commit unlawful act which is objectively dangerous, causing death, D must have MR for unlawful
act
R v Lamb- Act must be unlawful
,R v Franklin- A civil wrong isn’t enough
R v Lowe- Omission doesn’t constitute unlawful act manslaughter
Objectively dangerous
Would a sober and reasonable person realise the risk of some harm- R v Church
R v Larkin- No need to realise serious harm or specific harm suffered
R v Goodfellow- Act can be aimed at property/ arson
R v Dawson- Must be a risk of physical harm, fear is not enough
Causation
Normal rules of causation
R v Roberts- Is victim response to threat reasonable and foreseeable, therefore direct link between
assault and death
Novus actus interveniens, V self- injecting or V’s own actions can break the chain of causation – R v
Kennedy
Mens Rea
DPP v Newbury and Jones - D must have mens rea for unlawful act, it is not necessary to prove that D
foresaw any harm from his or her act
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Requires negligence and results in death
Can be an act or an omission unlike involuntary manslaughter
In R v Adomako Lord Mackay held the existence of a duty of care must be established by D to victim.
Caparo v Dickman can be established if there is an omission but if there is an obvious risk of death a duty
of care is established R v Robison
Lord Atkins neighbour principle “take reasonable care to not injury your neighbour”
R v Edwards- Parents owed a duty of care to their children by allowing them to play on railways
R v Wacker- Not relevant that V is party to an illegal act
Breach of duty- Nettleship v Weston, Bolam v Friern Barnett Hospital (2 professional questions)
, Causation- normal rules apply, did the breach cause death
R v Kennedy-V voluntarily self-administered drug without pressure from D. Broke chain of causation.
R v Broughton- At the time of the breach there must be a serious and obvious risk of death and it must
be reasonably foreseeable that the breach gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death.
Gross negligence- R v Adomako defined gross negligence as where “D’s conduct is so bad in all
circumstances to be judged criminal”
R v Bateman held negligence must be” GROSS” involving a disregard for life and safety to others and
amounts to a crime
Risk of Death- R v Misra and Srivista
Must be a risk to life of individuals who are owed a duty of care, judged objectively, doesn’t matter if D
didn’t foresee risk.
Property Offences: Theft triable either way 7 years
S1 Theft Act 1968
S(2) Dishonest S(3) appropriation of S(4) property S(5)belonging to another S(6) with intention to
permanently deprive
S(3) defines appropriation: R v Morris held that the assumption of only a right of the owner is sufficient
for appropriation
R v Gomez: Appropriation exists where there is consent, even if consent is by deception.
R v Hinks- appropriation exists even where there is a gift
S(4) defines property as “Money, real or personal property, things in action, other intangible property”
R v Welsh- bodily fluids are property
Oxford v Moss- confidential information is not property for the purpose of this act. Compare and
contrast for AO3
R v Akbar- property was deemed an actual item as opposed to information
R v Kohn- wrote cheques to pay off personal debt, held D was stealing a thing in action.
