Criminal Law Revision Notes
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE: MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
A) INTRODUCTION
Most serious of criminal offences
→ Ashworth: ‘Death is final. This finality makes it proper to regard death as the most serious harm that may be inflicted on
another, and to regard a person who chooses to inflict that harm without justification or excuse as the most culpable of
offenders.’
The law does not treat all killings in the same way
→ Manslaughter is the basic charge with respect to a homicide. This is where the MR for murder is lacking.
→ Murder is the aggravated crime of killing – killing with an intent to kill or cause GBH.
! Not every killing attracts criminal responsibility, since it may be justified or excused in the same way as any other crime. A
person who kills accidentally or even negligently, or who kills in self-defence, or as state executioner, has committed a homicide
but not a criminal homicide
Punishing homicide
→ Distinguishing murder and manslaughter: Although focal cases of murder and manslaughter may be easy to distinguish,
there exists a substantial moral grey area where precise categorisation is difficult (Wilson). This is seen in the following
case:
Hyam (1975) [HL]: In this case, some say that D should have been convicted for manslaughter, not murder. There are others
who argue for the other way round. There is a sense of ambiguity here, because even though D did a terrible act, she was not
aware that children were in the house.
→ This ambiguity would not be a problem if the judiciary had absolute discretion across the range of criminal homicides. But,
that is not the case.
The life sentence is mandatory for murder; conviction for murder means the permanent loss of liberty.
! Life sentence does not mean that a person convicted of murder will remain in prison for the rest of his life - a prisoner may
be released ‘on licence.
For manslaughter, life sentence is available for the most serious cases, but the judge is not bound to even impose a
custodial sentence.
→ How is the difference in sentencing between murder and manslaughter justified?
CLRC 14th Report on Offences Against the Person (1980): Retaining the mandatory life sentence maintains murder’s
symbolic moral uniqueness. The society is indicative of what we as a society think of such killings.
,Criminal Law Revision Notes
Defences (Voluntary Manslaughter)
→ There are defences that will reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter, despite the presence of a MR. The
following are two of the important ones that will be explored into:
1) Loss of Self Control (previously known as provocation)
2) Diminished Responsibility (a form of mental abnormality)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
, Criminal Law Revision Notes
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
B) ACTUS REUS (AR)
! The AR of criminal homicide is common to all forms, i.e. murder and manslaughter.
What is the AR of homicide?
→ The AR is unlawfully causing the death of another person by an act or omission where there is a duty to act.
→ This requirement will be analysed in the following three sections:
1) Unlawfully
2) Causing a death
3) Causing the death of a person
! It is not homicide to kill an animal.
1) Unlawfully
The element of unlawfulness indicates the absence of a valid defence.
R v Clegg (1995): Soldiers and police officers are allowed to kill during duty unless it is of excessive force or beyond the
scope of their duty.
Dr Bodkin Adams (1957): This case showed that doctors are allowed to kill by administering pain relief medication to a
patient.
Airedale Hospital Trustees v Bland (1993): This case showed that doctors are allowed to kill by withdrawing treatment from
a patient.
The consent of the victim (euthanasia), does not provide a defence for murder as D has the relevant MR (per Nicklinson
and Purdy).
R v Nicklinson (2014): D suffered from ‘locked-in-syndrome’, following a stroke, which rendered every muscle in his body
below his eyelids paralysed. He sought a declaration that it would be lawful on grounds of necessity for his doctors or his wife
to terminate his life since his condition rendered his life intolerable. He claimed that a refusal would be in violation of his human
rights and his autonomy. His claim was rejected by the CA and subsequently by the UKSC. The decision was later affirmed in
the European Court of Human Rights.
! The distinction between lawful and unlawful contributions to the death of another at that person’s request is problematised
with the following decision.
DPP v Purdy [2005] (HL): The claimant suffered from a form of irreversible multiple sclerosis. Her condition became
unbearable. She was unable to end her life without assistance, she had to be taken to a country where assisted suicide was
legal. Her husband was willing to make that journey but she was concerned that he might be prosecuted under the Suicide Act.
Hence, she sought a judicial review of DPP’s refusal to publish details of circumstances as to which a charge will be made for
complicity in a suicide.
Held: HL held that the DPP’s refusal to publish guidelines might be in breach of the claimant’s human right to private life. In
ruling so, HL took one small step towards acknowledging that helping someone to die may be justified so long as this furthers
the deceased’s autonomy and right to choice.
Martin: It was considered that workers should be freed of prosecution if they help patients to help their lives, e.g. taking the
patient to a country where euthanasia is allowed.
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE: MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
A) INTRODUCTION
Most serious of criminal offences
→ Ashworth: ‘Death is final. This finality makes it proper to regard death as the most serious harm that may be inflicted on
another, and to regard a person who chooses to inflict that harm without justification or excuse as the most culpable of
offenders.’
The law does not treat all killings in the same way
→ Manslaughter is the basic charge with respect to a homicide. This is where the MR for murder is lacking.
→ Murder is the aggravated crime of killing – killing with an intent to kill or cause GBH.
! Not every killing attracts criminal responsibility, since it may be justified or excused in the same way as any other crime. A
person who kills accidentally or even negligently, or who kills in self-defence, or as state executioner, has committed a homicide
but not a criminal homicide
Punishing homicide
→ Distinguishing murder and manslaughter: Although focal cases of murder and manslaughter may be easy to distinguish,
there exists a substantial moral grey area where precise categorisation is difficult (Wilson). This is seen in the following
case:
Hyam (1975) [HL]: In this case, some say that D should have been convicted for manslaughter, not murder. There are others
who argue for the other way round. There is a sense of ambiguity here, because even though D did a terrible act, she was not
aware that children were in the house.
→ This ambiguity would not be a problem if the judiciary had absolute discretion across the range of criminal homicides. But,
that is not the case.
The life sentence is mandatory for murder; conviction for murder means the permanent loss of liberty.
! Life sentence does not mean that a person convicted of murder will remain in prison for the rest of his life - a prisoner may
be released ‘on licence.
For manslaughter, life sentence is available for the most serious cases, but the judge is not bound to even impose a
custodial sentence.
→ How is the difference in sentencing between murder and manslaughter justified?
CLRC 14th Report on Offences Against the Person (1980): Retaining the mandatory life sentence maintains murder’s
symbolic moral uniqueness. The society is indicative of what we as a society think of such killings.
,Criminal Law Revision Notes
Defences (Voluntary Manslaughter)
→ There are defences that will reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter, despite the presence of a MR. The
following are two of the important ones that will be explored into:
1) Loss of Self Control (previously known as provocation)
2) Diminished Responsibility (a form of mental abnormality)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
, Criminal Law Revision Notes
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
B) ACTUS REUS (AR)
! The AR of criminal homicide is common to all forms, i.e. murder and manslaughter.
What is the AR of homicide?
→ The AR is unlawfully causing the death of another person by an act or omission where there is a duty to act.
→ This requirement will be analysed in the following three sections:
1) Unlawfully
2) Causing a death
3) Causing the death of a person
! It is not homicide to kill an animal.
1) Unlawfully
The element of unlawfulness indicates the absence of a valid defence.
R v Clegg (1995): Soldiers and police officers are allowed to kill during duty unless it is of excessive force or beyond the
scope of their duty.
Dr Bodkin Adams (1957): This case showed that doctors are allowed to kill by administering pain relief medication to a
patient.
Airedale Hospital Trustees v Bland (1993): This case showed that doctors are allowed to kill by withdrawing treatment from
a patient.
The consent of the victim (euthanasia), does not provide a defence for murder as D has the relevant MR (per Nicklinson
and Purdy).
R v Nicklinson (2014): D suffered from ‘locked-in-syndrome’, following a stroke, which rendered every muscle in his body
below his eyelids paralysed. He sought a declaration that it would be lawful on grounds of necessity for his doctors or his wife
to terminate his life since his condition rendered his life intolerable. He claimed that a refusal would be in violation of his human
rights and his autonomy. His claim was rejected by the CA and subsequently by the UKSC. The decision was later affirmed in
the European Court of Human Rights.
! The distinction between lawful and unlawful contributions to the death of another at that person’s request is problematised
with the following decision.
DPP v Purdy [2005] (HL): The claimant suffered from a form of irreversible multiple sclerosis. Her condition became
unbearable. She was unable to end her life without assistance, she had to be taken to a country where assisted suicide was
legal. Her husband was willing to make that journey but she was concerned that he might be prosecuted under the Suicide Act.
Hence, she sought a judicial review of DPP’s refusal to publish details of circumstances as to which a charge will be made for
complicity in a suicide.
Held: HL held that the DPP’s refusal to publish guidelines might be in breach of the claimant’s human right to private life. In
ruling so, HL took one small step towards acknowledging that helping someone to die may be justified so long as this furthers
the deceased’s autonomy and right to choice.
Martin: It was considered that workers should be freed of prosecution if they help patients to help their lives, e.g. taking the
patient to a country where euthanasia is allowed.
