Murder

Murder

Murder

'Unlawful killing of a human being under the King's peace with malice aforethought'

Actus reus

'Unlawful killing of a human being under the King's peace' Actus reus has been committed because V is dead For D to be guilty, it must be shown they caused death

Has the murder been committed by omission?

Duty as V.A.R- Evans Duty as D caused a dangerous situation- Miller Not done his duty under a contract - Adomako Duty because of a relationship (reliance)- Gibbins and Proctor

Factual cause

"But for his actions would V have died at that point?"- White Is D a factual cause of V's death?

Legal cause

State factual cause alone is not enough D must also be legal cause The jury must be convinced that D is to blame and is more than a minimal cause of the consequence even when other people have contributed (sole/partial/minimal etc reason) De Minimus rule Kimsey

Legal cause NAI

There must be an unbroken chain of causation between D's act & the consequence Break in CoC means defendant NOT liable D will not be a legal cause if something happens after his act or omission but before the consequence.

NAI medical treatment

Cheshire- only break the chain of causation if it is so independent of D's act, and in itself so powerful in causing death- "Only in the most extraordinary and unusual cases that medical treatment would break CoC- Some overwhelming failure on the part of the doctors" Jordan- "palpably wrong medical treatment" to break CoC Smith- "omissions will never break CoC" Malcherek and Steel- turning off life support will never break CoC

NAI victim

If victim's actions were a reasonably foreseeable reaction to the actions of the attacker no break in CoC Roberts- daftness test- only victim's' actions so daft and unexpected will break the chain Williams- break in CoC when actions not reasonably foreseeable

NAI 3rd party

If 3rd party actions reasonably foreseeable consequence of D's actions, no break- Pagett

NAI thin skull rule

Take victim as you find them Blaue- refusal of medical treatment doesn't break chain Holland- self neglect, ignoring medical treatment doesn't break chain Dear- aggravating (making worse) own injuries don't break chain

Mens rea

D has actus reus, but must also have mens rea of 'malice aforethought'

Malice

Murder is a strict liability offence so requires intention as a part of MR

Determined in Vickers and agreed in Cunningham: Express malice- intention to kill Implied malice- intention to cause GBH

Direct intent

Mohan says direct intention means consequence was D's main aim or desire Was consequence of act the one D wanted?

Oblique intent

If D denies direct intent, then consider oblique D did not want the consequence of act/omission Judge will direct the jury that they are not entitled to infer oblique intention unless they feel that: 1) Death or serious harm was a virtual certainty 2) D appreciated this then they may infer intention, but they do not have to. Nedrick/Woollin- Foreseeing consequence is just evidence of intention, not intention itself

Conclude

D may be guilty of committing murder as AR and MR are satisfied