Scenario Question Plan – Fatal Offences
Red – Legal Authority
Blue – Application
The scenario is concerned with the issue of fatal offences. The actions of (person in
the scenario) must be considered in light of relevant case law. In defining and
explaining the relevant law, it will be possible to establish whether (person in the
scenario) is criminally liable for the death of (victim in the scenario).
Murder is a common law offence, and the definition comes from Lord Coke in 1613.
It is defined as ‘The lawful killing of a human being, under the King’s peace with
malice aforethought.’
Actus Reus
Identify: A human being must be dead
Define: A person can only be convicted of murder it has actually resulted in the
death of a human being. According to AG’s Ref (No.3 of 1994), a person is a human
being as soon as it can exist independently of its mother. There has been much
controversy over what constitutes ‘dead’ but it would seem that the courts favour
the definition of ‘brain dead’ and this was confirmed in R v Malcharek and Steel
(1981).
Apply: Can the victim in the scenario exist independently of its mother? Are they
brain dead? If so, the defendant in the scenario may be criminally liable for their
death.
Identify: Factual Causation
Define: The ‘but for’ test has been established by case law in order to determine
whether the defendant is the factual causation of the victim’s death. It asks, ‘but
for’ the conduct of the defendant, would the victim have died as and when they did?
In R v White (1910), the defendant poisoned his mother with the intent to kill her.
However, she died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect, therefore
he was not the factual cause.
Apply: ‘But for’ the defendant in the scenario’s actions, would the victim have died
as and when they did? If they would have died anyway, the defendant will not be
the factual cause and will not be criminally liable.
Red – Legal Authority
Blue – Application
The scenario is concerned with the issue of fatal offences. The actions of (person in
the scenario) must be considered in light of relevant case law. In defining and
explaining the relevant law, it will be possible to establish whether (person in the
scenario) is criminally liable for the death of (victim in the scenario).
Murder is a common law offence, and the definition comes from Lord Coke in 1613.
It is defined as ‘The lawful killing of a human being, under the King’s peace with
malice aforethought.’
Actus Reus
Identify: A human being must be dead
Define: A person can only be convicted of murder it has actually resulted in the
death of a human being. According to AG’s Ref (No.3 of 1994), a person is a human
being as soon as it can exist independently of its mother. There has been much
controversy over what constitutes ‘dead’ but it would seem that the courts favour
the definition of ‘brain dead’ and this was confirmed in R v Malcharek and Steel
(1981).
Apply: Can the victim in the scenario exist independently of its mother? Are they
brain dead? If so, the defendant in the scenario may be criminally liable for their
death.
Identify: Factual Causation
Define: The ‘but for’ test has been established by case law in order to determine
whether the defendant is the factual causation of the victim’s death. It asks, ‘but
for’ the conduct of the defendant, would the victim have died as and when they did?
In R v White (1910), the defendant poisoned his mother with the intent to kill her.
However, she died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect, therefore
he was not the factual cause.
Apply: ‘But for’ the defendant in the scenario’s actions, would the victim have died
as and when they did? If they would have died anyway, the defendant will not be
the factual cause and will not be criminally liable.
