Murder - Homicide

What are the particular elements required for murder in regards to mens rea and actus reus?

Actus Reus →

• unlawful

• act or culpable omission

• that causes

• the death

Mens Rea →

• with intent to kill or cause GBH

In regards to the ‘unlawful’ component of murder (actus reus), what does this mean?

There is no defence for murder - such as self-defence.

R v Gibbins & Proctor in regards to the ‘acts or culpable omission’ component of murder (actus reus), what is the context and outcome?

Context → Both Gibbins and Proctor were charged with murder and convicted.

Outcome → It was concluded that Gibbins had a duty of care to his daughter as he knew she was ill and a doctor had not been called, he had failed to intervene.

Airdale NHS Trust v Bland in regards to the ‘acts or culpable omission’ component of murder (actus reus), what is the context, outcome and importance?

Context → Airedale NHS sought a declaration from the court to allow them both lawfully to discontinue all life sustaining treatment.

Outcome → The courts argued that terminating his life was not in his best interest, but his best interest in being kept alive had also disappeared, and hence the court stated the doctors were no longer under a legal duty of care to continue the treatment and care of Bland.

Important → Although it was an omission, it was NOT an unlawful or culpable omission.

In regards to the ‘that causes’ component of murder (actus reus), what does this mean?

Ordinary rules of causation apply - factual or legal causation

In regards to the ‘the death’ component of murder (actus reus), what does this mean?

This means ‘brain stem dead’

What is the case law that outlines that if you seriously injure someone and they are charged with S20/18 OAPA 1861, they will be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder?

R v Young (2005)

R v Poulton in regards to the ‘of another human being’ component of murder (actus reus), what does this mean?

According to R v Poulton, the child MUST have been ALIVE and had an independent existence FROM the mother

AG’s Reference (No.3 of 1994) in regards to the ‘of another human being’ component of murder (actus reus), what is the context, what does this mean?

Context → The defendant stabbed his girlfriend, which resulted in her going into labour shortly after and the child was born prematurely and eventually died of a premature birth.

Importance → “A foetus cannot be the victim of a crime of violence whilst in the uterus [...] which causes its death is not murder”

How do you start the mens rea component discussion first when addressing murder?

You start it with S.1 Homicide Act 1957

Section 1 of Homicide Act 1957 abolished constructive malice - which is known as being guilty of murder, if somebody dies in the course of you committing another crime.

R v Vickers in regards to the ‘With intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm’ component of murder (mens rea), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant had broken into an elderly woman's house, intending just to steal and thinking that she wouldn't hear him because she was deaf. The defendant used moderate violence when she saw him and she died.

Outcome → Implied malice is when you intend to cause GBH and is a component of men’s rea of murder.

DDP v Smith in regards to the ‘With intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm’ component of murder (mens rea), what does it state?

DDP v Smith confirmed that the judgement in Vickers was correct, saying that the wording in the Homicide Act 1957 made it clear beyond doubt that the mens rea for murder was the intention to kill or cause GBH

What is constructive malice? And what is the mens rea for Murder now?

Constructive malice was prevalent and was where the defendant killed in the course of another crime. For instance, if you intend to cause an injury, but the individual dies, making the defendant a murderer when they have no such intention.

Now the modern and current mens rea rule of is having “an intent to cause GBH or intent to kill” and implied malice to be charged with murder.

What does Lord Steyn say in R v Powell? And why did he criticise constructive malice?

Within R v Powell, Lord Steyn states that “the mental element of murder results in defendant’s being classified as murderers are in truth murderer”

Criticisms →

• There is no distinction between different offences - since all the offences have constructive malice

• Some provide ‘fair labelling’ as an alternative

R v Moloney outlines the golden rule for intention when related to court procedure, what is it?

“The jury should AVOID any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent, and leave it to the jury’s good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent”

• At the jury’s discretion

What types of intention are there in regards to the mens rea for murder?

1. Direct intention

2. Indirect intention

What is direct intention and which case outlines it?

R v Mohan outlined direct intention is “no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not”

• This includes a means to an end

• Your desire might be your intention (such as putting your pet down, despite your wishes not to. YOUR WISHES DON’T ALWAYS ALIGN WITH YOUR INTENTION)

What is the test for indirect intention?

The current test for indirect intention is a subjective test according R v Woolin.

There are 3 components of the R v Woollin was -

1. Was it virtually certain that death or serious bodily harm would occur? (barring unforeseen intervention) = OBJECTIVE TEST

2. Did the defendant appreciate that it was virtual certainty that death or bodily harm would occur? = SUBJECTIVE TEST (If yes to both questions, then it goes next to the jury)

3. The jury may or may not decide intention (but they do not have to) = jury discretion

Which case confirmed that indirect intention is a rule of evidence and not substantive rule of law?

R v Stringer

R v Moloney on distinguishing between motive and intentions?

“intention is quite distinct from motive or desire”

R v Steane on distinguishing between motive and intentions, what is the context and outcome?

Context → He was responsible for projecting an enemy broadcasts in the UK during war time and had argued that he was doing it to protect his family from being sent to a concentration camp.

Outcome → The court ruled that he had “innocent intent of a desire to save his wife and his children”

Importance → R v Steane contradicts R v Moloney’s statement in regards to distinguishing intention from motive/desire.

R v Latimer regarding transfered malice, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D had an argument with another man, used his belt to aim at him and instead harmed the pub landlord.

Outcome → The court concluded that the the intention to hurt A/another man will mean that the malice will be transferred to B/the pub landlord.

Important → It was concluded that if I intend to hit A but miss and hit B it does not matter, the criminal law will transfer my ‘malice’ from A to B

R v Pembliton regarding transfered malice, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D intended to throw a brick at someone and instead hit the window (intended a battery, but committed criminal damage).

Outcome → It was concluded within the court, that you cannot transfer malice if a different mens rea is required for a different offence.

Importance → Only the crime I actually commit has the same Mens Rea as the crime I originally intended/foresaw, then transferred malice can apply.

AG’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) regarding transfered malice, what is the context and outcome?

Context → The defendant’s original intention was to stab the mother, not the unborn child.

Outcome → The court argued that you cannot transfer the defendant’s malice from the mother to the foetus and then foetus to the child as yet unborn. Therefore the defendant was not guilty of murder, but unlawful act manslaughter.

Importance → AG’s reference outlined that you cannot have a DOUBLE TRANSFER - such as mother to the fetus → fetus to child.