Homicide

Sir Edward Coke’s definition:

“When a person of sound mind & discretion unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being, and under the kings peace, with malice afterthought either express or implicated”

Before: Felony murder, Dorset Hunters 1570:

• Whenever someone’s killed in the presence of another felony, it’s murder

• Dorset hunters:

  • Men illegally hunting in forest

  • Entered a house and killed homeowner

  • Pleaded provocation

  • Result: provocation may not be pleaded if it stems from D’s own illegal act

• Judges wanted to narrow scope of felony law & ‘murder by unlawful act’ narrowed to only killing in course of serious crimes

R v Vickers 1957:

• D robbed V’s house

• Hit v in the head when she caught him and she dies

• He admitted intending serious harm

• Counsel argued D shouldn’t be convicted of murder

• CA rejected, killing with intent to cause serious harm is a fault element of murder

R v Cunningham 1982:

• D broke V’s arm through blows from a chair

• V died

• Argued broken arm is not a life threatening injury

• Tried to narrow the scope of intent to do serious harm if it was life threatening injury

• House of Lords rejected the argument, murder if there is serious harm

• Lord Edmund Davies, legal critique of the law in Cunningham:

• ‘I find it passing strange that a person can be convicted of murder if death results from, say, his intentional breaking of anothers arm’

• ‘but i recognise… anyone prepared to act so wickedly has little complaint if, where death results, he is convicted and punished as severely as one who intended to kill’

• ‘it is a task for none other than parliament’

• Are the current laws surrounding murder too broad or too harsh?

• A call for parliament to possibly reform the law

Murder definition:

• Murder is committed when D commits the actus reus of homicide with ‘malice afterthought’/MR

Fault elements to murder:

• MR: 1) intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm 2) foresight of virtual certainty (following woollin)

• This form of MR came about to abolish the narrow definition of murder, that it had to have been thought out and premeditated

Conditional intention:

Intention to commit a serious crime if conditions are met

Murder facts:

• Life

• Minimum term set by judge

• Average prison time 15.5 yrs

• Released on license when judge regarded as safe

1st degree:

• Life

• Intent to kill/GBH where D is aware of risk of death

2nd degree:

• Max=life

• Intent to kill, duress/DR/loss of control

• Intent of serious injury

• Intent to cause injury/risk of injury and aware of death

Voluntary manslaughter:

• Admit you had a fault element for murder but you claim a defence:

  • Loss of control

  • DR

  • Suicide pact

Involuntary manslaughter:

• Gross negligence MS

• Reckless MS

• Unlawful and dangerous act MS

Gross negligence:

• R v Adomako, test:

  • D must owe a duty of care

  • Breach of duty of care

  • Breach gave ruse to an obvious and serious risk of death

  • Breach caused death, and

  • Breach of duty must be grossly negligent

  • Lord Atkin: ‘very high degree of negligence is required’

Restrictions of Adomako test, R v Rose 2017:

• D was optomotrist and examined a 7y/o

• Negligently omitted to perform an intra-ocular exam that she was obliged to perform

• V died from something that would’ve been detected if exam had been performed

• D’s conviction quashed, unlike Adomako, risk was not obvious therefore not grossly negligent

• CA emphasised risk should be obvious on the face of things, not obvious if test had been completed

R v Willoughby:

• D asked friend to help set fire to his pub to claim insurance

• Friend died

• Convicted of GN manslaughter

• Appealed stating no duty of care was owed

• CA stated:

  • D owned property

  • Enlisted victim to help

  • D was acting for financial benefit

  • So, duty was established

Reckless manslaughter, Lidar 1999:

• D drove off while V was having convo & V’s head was still partly in the car

• V’s head was crushed

• D was aware of necessary degree of risk of serious injury and chose to disregard it

Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter:

• D must commit an unlawful act, and

• The unlawful act must be dangerous, exposing the victim to the risk of some bodily harm resulting therefrom

• Reasonable people must recognise exposure to other person (r v church)

Dawson 1985:

• D went into petrol station and confronted man behind counter

• He had a heart attack and died

• Dawson charged but charges dropped

• Risk of physical harm needed, emotional shock insufficient

  • Problem? But for causation.

  • Possible reform here

Mitchell 1982:

• D pushed X who fell into V

• V hit his head and died

• D convicted of U&DAMS (transferred malice)

Watson:

• D threw brick through a window and entered house

• Verbally abused house owner and he died 90 mins later

• Unlawful act could be dangerous in certain circumstances, convicted

  • Bristow added credibility, while burglary might not be dangerous in itself, circumstances might make it

AR of murder:

Unlawful killing of a human being under the queen’s peace