Murder case flashcards

R v White (1910)

– D had put poison in his mothers drink and she had a few sips before going to sleep where she would die. It was found after examination she had actually died of a heart attack not from the poison. The defendant also testified he was going to use multiple doses to kill her and only one wouldn’t be enough. The but for test was used and established that he was guilty of attempted murder not murder as but for his actions his mother still would have had the heart attack and died.

R v Pagett (1983)

the defendant had kidnapped his girlfriend and her family. He was pursued by police and he used a shotgun he brought and shot at a police officer before grabbing a his pregnant girlfriend to act as a human shield. Returning fire from the officers killed the woman. D was found guilty of manslaughter and appealed the conviction on the base he hadn’t killed her. The conviction was upheld as it was clear by firing at the officer and kidnapping the girl he had set about a dangerous chain of events.

R v Hughes (2013)

D was driving his campervan perfectly down a road. Round a corner came a drover swerving on the road who hit him and died. This driver was found to be on heroin and that caused the swerving and speed. D had no licence or insurance and was found guilty of death by driving without a licence and he was convicted using the ‘but for’ test. This was appealed all the way to the supreme court and legal causation was used instead to show the event was not caused by D and so he could not be guilty of causing death. This set the precedent that D’s acts must substantially cause the consequence for them to be liable.

R v Hennigan (1971)

D charged with death my dangerous driving for hitting a car while speeding. The other car was across in D’s lane trying to turn when it was hit. It was decided that because D was speeding their action was the most substantial cause so they were legally liable.

R v Inglis

Case on MR of murder. D’s son was in a coma but seemed likely to recover however D decided he was in a world of hurt and she had to put him out of his misery so she gave him a lethal dose of heroin. She intended to kill him and there was no defence for euthanasia. Also established ‘malice aforethought’ does not require any ill will towards the victim.

R v Vickers

Case established that intent to cause GBH that leads to murder is still sufficient MR for murder. D broke into a sweet shop of an old, disabled lady and attacked her and she died. It also established that where hurt is made worse by the fragility of the victim the assailant is liable for those injuries even when exacerbated by V’s condition.

R v Blaue

Established the thin skull rule. D stabbed V who then refused to take blood due to their religion and they died. D was still liable for murder on the basis of ‘take your victim as you find them’.

R v Poulton 1832

D strangled her baby while it was still connected to her by the umbilical cord. As it was still connected and not operating independently the baby was judged not to be a reasonable person in being and V was acquitted.

AG’s reference No.3 of 1994

D stabbed his girlfriend causing her to prematurely give birth to their baby and the fetus died. It was ruled the fetus could not be considered a reasonable person in being so it couldn’t be considered a murder victim. If a child is injured by an act or omission, but then born alive and then dies they can be considered a reasonable person in being.

R v Malcherek

Established that removing life support does not break the chain of causation. D stabbed V and she received medical help but then suffered a blood clot and her heart stopped for 30 minutes. When she was revived her brain stem had lost all activity and she was taken off life support after 1 day. D was still liable and convicted of murder.

R v Blackwell

D was at war in Afghanistan so could kill but he executed a man illegally. This defined ‘under the King’s peace’ as any time outside or war and if in war within the rules of wartime.

R v Woolin

D threw his baby across a room into his pram that was up against a brick wall and the baby was killed. The jury had to decide both whether there was a clear and obvious risk and if D recognised that risk and acted anyway. D was convicted of murder with oblique intent.

R v Moloney

D accidentally shot his step father while they were both drunk not believing the gun was pointed at V. At first this was directed as oblique intent but on appeal the conviction was downgraded to manslaughter as the MR was missing entirely.

R v Mohan

Defines direct intent as D was told to slow his car down by an officer and he then sped up directly intending to scare or even hit the officer.

R v Gibbons and Procter

Ds failed to feed their 7 year old child. This omission was enough of an act to satisfy the ‘killed’ element of murder.

Year and a day rule

There is no time limit on how long there can be between the act and the consequence of death for it to be prosecuted. However, any time over 3 years requires the attorney general’s consent to be prosecuted.