Fatal Offences- Model Answers (2)

What is the introduction for murder model answer?

Prima facie, the D [state name], could be charged with the Common law offence of murder of the victim [state name]. Murder is defined by Lord Coke in the 17th century as “the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Kings peace with malice a forethought express or implied”.

What is the AR paragraph for murder?

In order to be guilty of murder, the D must satisfy the AR for murder. Firstly, it must be an unlawful Killing, so not in self defence (R V martin), prevention of a crime or authorised at a time of war, [ state whether it was lawful or not and why].

It must be committed by an act or omission (failure to act; R V Stone and Dobinson), here it was [state whether it was act or omission].

The V must have been a reasonable person in being at the time of the offence. It will be a reasonable person is they were not a foetus, since they were wholly expelled from the mother and had an independant blood circulation (AG Ref No3 1997) nor brain steam dead ( R V Malcherek and Steel) [Apply].

And it took place under kings peace as the country was not in a declared course of war (apply).

What’s the factual and legal causation Paragraph for murder?

As battery is a result crime causation must be proven. Factual causation will be established using the but for test. (R V white/R V paggett).

Legal causation must also be proven. the defendant will be de minimis (R V Kimsey) if they are more than a minimal cause and operating and substantial cause if they are most to blame (R V Smith)

Check for intervening acts for murder.

what’s the MR paragraph for murder?

The men’s rea for murder would also need to be satisfied. As per Lord Cokes definition the MR of murder is malice anforethought express or implied. Express malice a for thought can be established by proving either direct or oblique intense. A direct intention to kill (R V Mohan) is where the D wants to kill the victim. Oblique intention is where the defendant wants to achieve a particular outcome but as a result, death or serious bodily harm is a virtual certainty and the D appreciates this. implied malice of four thought is when the defendant has an intention to cause GBH but the victim dies as a result of the injury (R V Vickers) . DPP V Smith ruled this to mean really serious harm.

What’s the conclusion Paragraph for murder?

In conclusion the defendant has satisfied the AR and MR of murder and would be guilty of murder subject to any defence. If convicted of this indictable offence (tried in the Crown Court) would face a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment

What’s the introduction paragraphs (2) for Diminished responsibility?

It might be possible for the D [state name] to raise the partial defence of DR contained in s2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s52 of the Coroners and justice Act 2009. This means if the D is successful the charge of murder will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter by DR.

DR can only be used if the D did not have the required MR for murder because they were suffering from an AMF caused by a RMC that substantially impaired their ability to either; understand the nature of their own conduct, form a rational judgement or expertise self control, and that was the explanation for it.

What’s the paragraph for AMF in diminished responsibility?

To be successful in raising DR under s52(1), the D must suffer from an AMF. There is no legal definition, but currently the definition by Lord Parker from R V Byrne is used and states that an AMF is ‘a state of mind so different from that if the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term abnormal.’

What’s the paragraph for RMC in DR?

The AMF must be caused by a RMC under S 52 (1)(a). It must be recognised by the medical profession (RV Bunch) and medical evidence from at least two experts must be submitted. Although there is no definitive list of RMC’s, the World Health Organisations Internal Classification of Diseases ICD-11 is often used as a source. For example, depression as illustrated in R V Seers and Battered Spouce Syndrome from R V Hobson.

What is the paragraph for substantially impaired for DR?

The next element that must be considered is whether the Ds RMC substantially impaired their mental responsibility s52 (1)(b). The statute states a D must not be able to understand the nature of their own conduct, form a rational judgement or exercise self-control. The Supreme Court in RV Golds decided that ‘substantially’ should be given its ordinary meaning by the jury. In RV squelch it was held that substantial does not mean total but more than minimal or trivial but this is a matter for the jury.

The D must show that they did not have the:

• ability to understand the nature of their own conduct under s52(1A)(a): this could the situations where the D doesn’t know what they are doing or are delusional, as in R V Dietschman.

• Or the ability to form a rational judgement under s52(1A)(b): this is where the D cannot make sensible choices, or do the right thing, as in R V Ahluwalia.

• Or the abilities to exercise self-control under s52)1A)©: this is where the D cannot control their actions, as in R V Byrne

What’s the paragraph for establishing a casual link between AMF and Ds conduct in DR?

The Final part of the test that the D would have to satisfy is whether there is a link between their AMF and the killing so whether it provides an explanation for their acts s52(1)(C). S52(1B) states that an AMF provides an explanation for Ds conduct if it causes or is a significant factor in causing D to carry out that conduct.

What’s the paragraph for proving intoxication is not the same as an AMF?(1)- DR

If the d is intoxicated by alcohol or drugs or another noxious substance then this NOT an AMF as illustrated in R V Dowds. Simply taking drink or drugs will not be enough for DR.

What’s the paragraph for when a D is intoxicated but also has an AMF?(2)- DR

There may be scenarios in which a D has an AMF but is also intoxicated. The court must decide if they can still use the defence of DR. The rule on this issue comes from RV Dietschmann where Lord Hutton stated that the court must ignore the impact of drink or drugs and decide whether the D would’ve killed the victim if they were sober. If they would then they can use DR, but if not then it will not be available.

What’s the paragraph for when the D is suffering from ADS as part of intoxication (3)?- DR

Finally, if the d is suffering from ADS then this is regarded as a RMC and the d can raise DR. Under this, the prolonged use of alcohol or drugs has led to brain damage which leaves the individual addicted the substance; R V Wood . This was later approved in R V Stewart.

What’s the conclusion paragraph for DR?

To conclude, it would appear that the satisfies/doesn’t satisfy all the requirements for the partial defence of DR under s52 Coroners and Justuce Act 2009. They will therefore have/not have their mandatory life sentence for murder removed and replaced with a discretionary sentenced by the judge.

What is the introduction Paragraph for loss of control?

Prima facie, it might be possible for the defendant to raise the partial defence of loss of control contained in s.54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 . This means if they are successful, their charge of murder will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter by loss of control.

What’s the first paragraph after the introduction loss of control? (Proving total loss of self control)

To be successful in raising LOC under s.54 (1)(a), the D Must have lost all self control. It is more than getting angry or losing their temper they must have been so angry or upset that they entered a blind rage and lost all abilities to control themselves ( R V Jewell). If the D has a reasonable amount of awareness, they will not be able to rely on LOC (R v Cocker). Under s.54 (2) it need not be sudden but the longer the gap is the likely the D actually lost control and it’s more likely to be premeditated. Also, the D cannot act in the considered desire of revenge as per s.54(4) and illustrated in (R v Evan’s)

What’s the third paragraph in LOC? (Qualifying Trigger)

Next, as stated in s.54 (1)(b), there must be a QT that caused the D to lose control. There are three possible triggers; firstly there is the fear trigger under s.55(3) when the D suffered a lot of control because of threats of serious violence from the D to either the V themselves (R V Lodge) or another identifiable person (R v Ward). The defence will not succeed where the Ds fear of serious violence was indicted by himself or self induced as contained in s.54 (6)(a)

What is the anger trigger paragraph for LOC?

Secondly, there is the anger trigger under s.55(4) where things were said or done or both of an extremely grave character which caused the D to have a justifiable sense of being wronged (R v Hatter). This is an objective test and means the victims actions are words were so awful that the defendant believes they were justified in their actions and a reasonable person would also agree.

As shown in s.55 (6)(C), sexual infidelity is disregarded and is not on its own a qualifying trigger under the anger trigger. However, as illustrated in RV Clinton it can be considered a contributing factor when there are other qualifying triggers present. It therefore shouldn’t be ignored if it was integral to and formed an essential part of the context where there are other factors.

What’s the fear and anger Paragraph for LOC?

The final QT from s.55 (5), a combination of both the fear and anger trigger

What’s the paragraph for reasonable person of same age, sex and circumstances- LOC?

finally the court decides whether a reasonable person of the D age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint put in the same circumstances might have reacted in the same way s.54 (1)(C). The D is expected to show a normal degree of tolerance and self control which is not taken into account certain features which make them react in a particular way such as short temper, drunkenness which makes them lose control more quickly or a medical problem causing an overreaction. Both internal and external circumstances can be taken into account however voluntary intoxication is not a relevant characteristic (R v Asmelash)

What is the introductory paragraph for UAM?

What’s the unlawful act paragraph for UAM?

What’s the objectively dangerous paragraph for UAM?

What’s the factual and legal causation Paragraph for UAM?

what’s the conclusion Paragraph for UAM?

What’s the introductory paragraph for GNM?

Involuntary manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing without malice aforethought. GNM is one type of involuntary manslaughter.

Prima facie, the defendants may be charged with the common law offence of GNM in relation to the victims death

GNM arises where Ds conduct is seriously negligent and that negligence causes death. RV Adomako initially settle the test but this has recently been further developed by RV Broughton.

What is the duty of care paragraph for GNM?

a duty of care must first be established. A duty of care has been interpreted as applying “ wherever Ds conduct carries a foreseeable risk to those around them”. One can rise in certain situations where the defendant fails to act when they have a responsibility to do so or a relationship of protection.

Relevant cases:

• Doctor to patient- R V Adomako

• Contractual duty- R v Pittwood

• Driver to passenger- R v Andrew’s

• parents to child- R v Stone and Dobinson

• Teacher, to children- R v Finlay

• Employer to employee- R v Dean

• Drug dealer to client- R v Khan and khan

• Landlord to tenant- R v Singh

• Restaurant owner to customer- R V Zaman

• Homeowner to emergency services- R v Winter

• Joint enterprise- R v Wacker

• Creation of a dangerous situation- R v Evan’s/Miller

• Voluntary assumption- R v Stone and Dobinson

What’s the breach of duty Paragraph for GNM?

Next it must be established that there was a breach of duty. The D will be judged against whether they fell below the standard of a reasonable man performing the same activity which is an objective test (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks). Professionals, learners and children will be judged against different standards.

Relevant cases:

• Professional- Bolam

• Learner- Nettleship v Weston

• Child- Mullins v Richard’s

• Level of skill- Wells v Cooper

What is the causation paragraph for GNM? (reasonable person foresee serious + obvious risk of death)

As illustrated in RV Broughton, at the time of the breach, the jury must conclude that a reasonably prudent person would have seen a serious and obvious risk of death and not merely a risk of injury. Obvious means ‘ a present risk which is clear and unambiguous not one which may become apparent upon further investigation.’ R v Rose

Usual rules for causation- FC/LC/Intervening acts

What’s the grossly negligent paragraph for GNM?

Finally, the court will also need to decide whether the Ds actions were grossly negligent. According to Lord Hewart in R v Bateman, grossly negligent means ‘ going beyond me compensation and showing such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to criminal punishment’. The judgement in RV Cornish added to this; the act or omission must be ‘ so flagrant and atrocious, it would consequently amount to a crime.