Chapter 4: Homicide I: Murder and Partial Defences

Flashcards reviewing actus reus and mens rea of murder, voluntary manslaughter, and the partial defences of diminished responsibility and loss of control.

What constitutes the actus reus common to all homicide?

The unlawful killing of a human being that the defendant (D) causes.

How does the law define a 'victim' and 'death' for the purposes of homicide?

A victim is a baby once born with an independent existence (where time of death matters, not time of injury). Death legally means brain stem death, which means switching off life support does not free D from liability.

What are the actus reus and mens rea requirements for murder under the common law?

Actus reus: unlawfully causing the death of a human being under the King's peace. Mens rea ('malice aforethought'): the intent to kill or cause GBH (really serious harm).

What is the distinction between direct intent and indirect intent in murder according to Woollin?

Direct intent is D's aim or purpose. Indirect intent occurs where death or GBH was virtually certain and D appreciated that fact.

Why are diminished responsibility and loss of control referred to as 'partial defences' rather than true defences?

They are not true defences because D remains liable for voluntary manslaughter rather than being acquitted; they apply only to murder and allow for judicial discretion in sentencing instead of a mandatory life sentence.

What four elements must be established for diminished responsibility under Homicide Act 1957 s 2, as amended by CJA 2009 s 52?

1. An abnormality of mental functioning; 2. Arising from a recognised medical condition (psychiatric or physical); 3. That substantially impaired D's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment, and/or exercise self-control; 4. Which provides an explanation for the killing.

What is the burden and standard of proof for the defence of diminished responsibility?

There is a legal burden placed on D to prove the defence on the balance of probabilities.

How did the case of Golds define the term 'substantial' in the context of diminished responsibility impairment?

'Substantial' means 'important or weighty', not merely more than trivial, and it is an issue for the jury to decide.

How is intoxication treated under the rules for diminished responsibility?

Voluntary intoxication alone does not qualify. A recognised condition (such as schizophrenia) can still qualify even if triggered by intoxication. With alcohol dependency syndrome, the jury considers only the effect of alcohol consumed because of the illness.

What are the three statutory components of loss of control under CJA 2009 ss 54-55?

1. D actually lost self-control (subjective); 2. The loss of control had a qualifying trigger; 3. A person of D's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, in D's circumstances, might have reacted in the same or a similar way.

What is the burden of proof for the partial defence of loss of control?

D must raise sufficient evidence to satisfy the evidential burden (a bare assertion is not enough, per Jewell), after which the prosecution must disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

Does a loss of control under CJA 2009 need to be sudden, and when is the defence excluded?

It does not need to be sudden and can cover a build-up such as domestic abuse (Ahluwalia). However, it is not available if D acted in a considered desire for revenge (evidenced by planning, a weapon, or a long delay).

What are the two qualifying triggers for loss of control specified in CJA 2009 s 55?

1. Fear trigger (s 55(3)): fear of serious violence from V against D or an identified person (subjective test). 2. Anger trigger (s 55(4)): things said or done of an extremely grave character, giving D a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (objective test).

How does Clinton address the role of sexual infidelity in the partial defence of loss of control?

Sexual infidelity is disregarded on its own as a qualifying trigger, but it may be considered as context alongside other triggers.

In the objective comparison for loss of control, what characteristics are shared by the 'normal person' and what factors are excluded?

The normal person shares D's sex, age, and relevant history and characteristics (such as sexual orientation or racial origin being taunted, per Nyofi). Factors bearing only on general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint (like aggression or a short temper) and voluntary intoxication are excluded.

How do diminished responsibility and loss of control differ regarding their statutory basis, burden of proof, and necessity of medical evidence?

Diminished responsibility: HA 1957 s 2; legal burden on D on the balance of probabilities; medical evidence is essential (Blackman). Loss of control: CJA 2009 ss 54-55; evidential burden on D then prosecution disproves beyond reasonable doubt; medical evidence is not required.