murder cases ar and mr

Definition of murder — Lord Coke

Facts: Not a case — historic common-law definition.
Principle:

• “The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King/Queen’s peace with malice aforethought.”
  Significance:

• Forms the basis of modern murder law.

• Mandatory life sentence = criticised for lack of flexibility.

Reasonable creature in being — foetus (AG’s Ref No.3 of 1994)

Facts: D stabbed pregnant girlfriend → premature birth → baby died.
Principle:

• Foetus not a “creature in being”.

• Cannot be guilty of murder of an unborn child.

• Can be guilty of manslaughter if child is later born alive and then dies.
  Significance:

• Sets boundary for start of life in criminal law.

Life support / brain death — Malcherek & Steel

Facts: Victims placed on life support; doctors switched machines off.
Principle:

• Switching off life support does not break the chain of causation.

• Brain death = legal death.
  Significance:

• Protects medical decisions; defendants remain liable.

Omissions – duty to act Gibbins and proctor  

• Facts: Father and partner starved child to death.
  Principle:

  • Parents owe a duty of care.

  • Failure to act = unlawful killing.
    Significance:

  • Omissions can form AR of murder where there is a duty.

Factual causation — White

D tried to poison his mother → she died of a heart attack first.
Principle:

• “But for” test — but for D’s action, would death have occurred?
  Significance:

• If D is not the factual cause, no liability for homicide.

Legal causation — Smith

Soldier stabbed; dropped twice on way to treatment; poor medical care.
Principle:

• Original wound must be an “operating and substantial cause” of death.

• Medical negligence did not break the chain.
  Significance:

• Sets the high threshold for breaking causation.

Thin skull rule — r v Blaue

Facts: D stabbed victim; she refused blood transfusion for religious reasons (Jehovah’s Witness) and died.
Principle:

• Must “take victim as you find them”, including beliefs.
  Significance:

• Victim’s refusal of treatment does not break chain.

Medical negligence breaking chain — Jordan

Victim recovering; doctors gave drug he was known to be allergic to; dose “palpably wrong.”
Principle:

• Chain only breaks if treatment is independent and overwhelmingly potent.
  Significance:

• Rare exception; most negligence doesn’t break chain.

Express malice aforethought definition - r v vickers

Facts: Not from a single case; general principle.
Principle:

• Intention to kill = express malice.
  Significance:

• Simplest route to murder.

implied malice — Cunningham

D inflicted severe injuries during burglary.
Principle:

• Intention to cause GBH = intention for murder.
  Significance:

• Widely used in prosecutions — many murders involve GBH intent, not intent to kill.

Direct intention — Mohan

Facts: D drove car at police officer.
Principle:

• Direct intention = “aim or purpose.”
  Significance:

• Pure, uncomplicated intention.

Oblique/indirect intention — Woollin

Facts: D threw baby at a wall; baby died.
Principle:

• Jury may find intention if:

  1. Death/GBH was a virtual certainty

  2. D realised this
     Significance:

• Core test for indirect intention.

Transferred malice — Latimer

Facts: D aimed belt at man but hit a woman.
Principle:

• MR transfers if same type of offence intended and committed.
  Significance:

• Helps maintain liability where harm hits the “wrong” victim.

R v Cheshire — Medical treatment & causation

(Key Facts):

• D shot V.

• V later died from complications after a tracheotomy.

• Doctors failed to spot the complication.

Legal Principle:

• Medical treatment only breaks the chain if it is independent and so potent that D’s act is insignificant.

• Normally, negligent treatment does not break causation.

R v Kimsey — More than a slight or trifling link

(Key Facts):

• High-speed car chase.

• Exact cause of the crash unclear.

• Evidence showed D’s driving contributed.

Legal Principle:

• D’s act must be more than a slight or trifling link to the result.

• Very low threshold for legal causation.

R v Roberts — Victim escape and causation

(Key Facts):

• D made sexual advances in a moving car.

• V jumped out to escape and was injured.

Legal Principle:

• Chain remains intact if V’s reaction is reasonably foreseeable.

• Only breaks if V acts in a “daft” or completely unpredictable way.