UNIT 3 – Homicide (unlawful killings) and Partial defences to murder
1. Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the legal requirements for murder and
voluntary manslaughter and make sound judgments on how these offences are applied
in practice.
2. Appreciate the circumstances in which the partial defences of diminished responsibility
and loss of self-control may apply.
3. Analyse factual scenarios to determine potential criminal liability for homicide by using
relevant legal principles; and accurately apply legal knowledge with supporting reasons
in a logical and persuasive way.
4. Critically evaluate the current law relating to the partial defences to murder by
reference to current academic research.
Homicide:
- Murder
- Voluntary/involuntary manslaughter
- Gross negligence manslaughter
Definition of murder – ‘the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the
Queen’s peace with malice aforethought’ Coke
- But mercy killing with benevolent intentions is still liable for murder R v Inglis
- Aforethought misleading – can be spur of the moment killing
General principles of homicide –
1. Homicide must be to a human being -
- Abortion not homicide – must be wholly expelled and exist indepdenently – drawn
breath - to be protected by the law of homicide R v Poulton
- Time of death that is relevant – injury can occur while in the womb, if baby is born
and dies in effect of the injury the person will be liable Attorney-general’s reference
no3 of 1994 pregnant stab wound
- Killing of an animal would fall under s.1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971,
provided the animal was property which belonged to another.
2. Legal definition of death – brain dead
- ‘the irreversible death of brain stem, which controls the basic functions of the body
such as breathing’ – R v Malcherek and Steel
3. Causation –
- Must be a substantial cause of the victims death – R v White
- Operating and substantial cause of death – Malcherick v Steel
, - Factual causation – but for test – matter of fact
- This can include the acceleration of death – but must be significant – more
than negligent R v Cheshire
- Negligible accerlation = very trivial accerlation e.g. matter of seconds – may be
ignored
- Legal causation – matter of law- need not be the sole/main cause but contribute
significantly to the victims death R v Pagett
- Chain of causation may be broken by an intervening act – will not be
acceptable defence if event was foreseeable or if injuries inflicted were still a
substantial cuase of death
- Discontinuation of life support does not break chain of causation R v
Malcherek and Steel
- Fright & legal causation – test is the same, foreseeability – easier to establish
for older victims R v Watson
- Voluntary ethuanasia does not break causation – so long as it is a reasonable
response expected of a victim in that situation and the suffering caused – R v
Wallace
- Medical negligence -
- only in cases where treatment is palpably wrong, and not in course of
general expectations/risks of treatments will break chain of causation
R v Jordan – antibiotic allergy
- or if primary cause is no longer of medical concern – not an operating
cause but merely part of the history R v Smith
- but must be entirely independent from original injury and making
original act insignificant – R v Cheshire
- Thin skull, take them as you find them rule – R v Blaue
1. Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the legal requirements for murder and
voluntary manslaughter and make sound judgments on how these offences are applied
in practice.
2. Appreciate the circumstances in which the partial defences of diminished responsibility
and loss of self-control may apply.
3. Analyse factual scenarios to determine potential criminal liability for homicide by using
relevant legal principles; and accurately apply legal knowledge with supporting reasons
in a logical and persuasive way.
4. Critically evaluate the current law relating to the partial defences to murder by
reference to current academic research.
Homicide:
- Murder
- Voluntary/involuntary manslaughter
- Gross negligence manslaughter
Definition of murder – ‘the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the
Queen’s peace with malice aforethought’ Coke
- But mercy killing with benevolent intentions is still liable for murder R v Inglis
- Aforethought misleading – can be spur of the moment killing
General principles of homicide –
1. Homicide must be to a human being -
- Abortion not homicide – must be wholly expelled and exist indepdenently – drawn
breath - to be protected by the law of homicide R v Poulton
- Time of death that is relevant – injury can occur while in the womb, if baby is born
and dies in effect of the injury the person will be liable Attorney-general’s reference
no3 of 1994 pregnant stab wound
- Killing of an animal would fall under s.1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971,
provided the animal was property which belonged to another.
2. Legal definition of death – brain dead
- ‘the irreversible death of brain stem, which controls the basic functions of the body
such as breathing’ – R v Malcherek and Steel
3. Causation –
- Must be a substantial cause of the victims death – R v White
- Operating and substantial cause of death – Malcherick v Steel
, - Factual causation – but for test – matter of fact
- This can include the acceleration of death – but must be significant – more
than negligent R v Cheshire
- Negligible accerlation = very trivial accerlation e.g. matter of seconds – may be
ignored
- Legal causation – matter of law- need not be the sole/main cause but contribute
significantly to the victims death R v Pagett
- Chain of causation may be broken by an intervening act – will not be
acceptable defence if event was foreseeable or if injuries inflicted were still a
substantial cuase of death
- Discontinuation of life support does not break chain of causation R v
Malcherek and Steel
- Fright & legal causation – test is the same, foreseeability – easier to establish
for older victims R v Watson
- Voluntary ethuanasia does not break causation – so long as it is a reasonable
response expected of a victim in that situation and the suffering caused – R v
Wallace
- Medical negligence -
- only in cases where treatment is palpably wrong, and not in course of
general expectations/risks of treatments will break chain of causation
R v Jordan – antibiotic allergy
- or if primary cause is no longer of medical concern – not an operating
cause but merely part of the history R v Smith
- but must be entirely independent from original injury and making
original act insignificant – R v Cheshire
- Thin skull, take them as you find them rule – R v Blaue
