Murder

Murder is defined as

The unlawful killing of a reasonble creature in being under the kings peace with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied lord coke 1613

Murders can be caused by

An act or an omission

When does d have a duty

Contractual

Public office duty

Creating a dangerous situation

Relationship

Voluntary assumption of responsibility

Contractual duty case

R v pittwood

Relationship duty case

R v gibbons and proctor

Voluntary assumption of responsibility case

R v stone and dobinson

Public office case

R v dytham

Creating a dangerous situation case

R v miller

What causation does murder need

1. Factual causation

The but for test

1. Legal causation

Operative and substantial test

Absence of intervening acts

The actus reus of murder

Is killing which is unlawful of a reasonable creatur in being, under the kings peace

R v martin

Some killings are lawful Eg:

Killing in self defence

Dnrs

Soldiers

Police

Use of necessary force in self defence may mean killing is lawful

What is a reasonable creature in being

An unborn child is not a reasonable creature so cannot be murdered, the child must be fully expelled from a mothers woms and acpable of an existence that is independant of the mother, legally life begins at birth, attorney general reference (no3 or 1994)

R v malcherek and steel

Switching off a life support machine from a patient who is brain dead does nto break the chain of causation, legally life ends at brain death

Airedale trust v bland 1993

Treatment can be withdrawn from a patient if a court decides it is in the patients best intrest to do so

Under the kings/queens peace referes to

Referes to a time of peace ie when a country is no at war. A country is only not under peace when a war has been declared, r v clegg

Mens rea of murder

Malice aforethought, either expressed or implied

This means intention to kill or cause gbh

Express malice means

The defendant expressly intends to cause the death

Implied malice means

The defendant intends to cause gbh but actually causes death

Dpp v smith

Smith defines gbh as really serious harm

R v vickers

The intention to cause gbh is sufficient mr for murder if v dies, the jury can imlpu from ds intent to cause gbh that tehy also intended to kill

Mmohan

Direct intention, the defendant sets out/ aims to cause the consequence

Wollin

Indirect intention,

1. The consequence of death/ serious injury was vertually certain

2. D realises the consequence was virtually certain

R v matthews and alleyne

Confirmes the rule in woollin, forseeing death or gbh does not prove intention in itself, merely provides extra evidance from which intention can be found, all circumstances must be considered

Coincidence/ contemporaneity

Means actus reus and mens rea must coinside which means the ar and mr must be present/ take place at the smae time

If they do not coinside the court may make then do so by using the single transaction theory or continuting act

R v thabo meli

Single transaction theory

The court said beating v up and throwing v over the vliff and vs death was all a single transaction as dh had the required mens rea when the act began the mens rea continued during the single transaction making d guilty of murder

A continuing act

Fagan v mpc

The actus reus began when d drove onto vs foot, wjhen d realised he was on the mans foot, he formed the mens rea as the actus reus was still conitnuing, the actus reus coinsided at thsi point so d could still be found guilti

Transfered malice cases

R v latimer

R v pembilton

R v latimer

D was still guilty as his malice was transfered from his intended victim to his actual victim,

R v pembleton

He was not guilty of criminal damage, as there was no mens rea for cd only for battey, malice cannot transfer between crimes.