Murder AO1

Definition of murder

Defined by Lord Coke as:

The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Kings Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied.

Actus reus of murder?

The following have to be proved:

-The D was killed

-They were reasonable creature in being

-under the Kings Peace

-and the killing was unlawful

Expand on ‘Killed’

The actus reus of killing can be an act or an omission (shown in Gibbons v Proctor). There may arise questions on causation, where there were other things that contributed to the death like poor medical treatment.

What if someone is ‘brain dead’? Are they still a RCiB?

It is not certain whether such person would be a ‘reasonable creature’. However, doctors are allowed to switch off life support machines without being liable.

The Law Reform Act 1996 sets no time limit on when the death may occur after the unlawful act. Where it is more than 3 years after the attack, the Attorney-General’s consent is needed for the prosecution.

Expand on the ‘Kings Peace’

Under the KP means that killing an enemy in the course of war is not murder. However, killing a prisoner of war would be sufficient for the actus reus of murder.

How does a killing become not ‘unlawful’?

If its in:

self defence

in defence of another

in the prevention of a crime and the defendant used reasonable force in the circumstances

Mens rea of murder?

The mens rea of murder is stated as being ‘malice aforethought, express or implied’. This means that there are two different intentions, either which can be used to prove the defendant guilty of murder.

Express- the intention to kill

Implied- the intention to cause GBH

You can be guilty of murder even if D did not intend to kill (decided in R v Vickers).

R v Cunningham- it was confirmed that intention to cause GBH was sufficient for the mens rea of murder.