Homicide

What is murder?

The most serious form of homicide.

What sentence must be imposed for murder?

A mandatory life sentence.

Which statute provides for the mandatory life sentence for murder?

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965.

How is murder defined at common law?

The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought.

What are the actus reus elements of murder?

An unlawful killing of a human being under the King’s peace.

What is the mens rea of murder?

Malice aforethought, meaning an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

When is a killing lawful rather than murder?

Where it occurs in lawful warfare, in the lawful advancement of justice, or through reasonable and necessary self-defence.

Can killing an enemy soldier in battle amount to murder?

No, where the killing is lawful under the rules of warfare.

Can self-defence make an intentional killing lawful?

Yes, where the force used was necessary and reasonable.

Why is murder a result offence?

The defendant’s conduct must cause the victim’s death.

What test applies to factual causation in murder?

The “but for” test from R v White.

What test applies to legal causation in murder?

The defendant’s conduct must be an operating and substantial cause that is more than minimal.

Which case confirms that the defendant’s contribution to death must be more than minimal?

R v Hughes.

Who qualifies as a human being for the actus reus of murder?

A person who has been born alive and is capable of independent life.

What is the modern medical test for legal death?

Brain death.

When does a child become capable of being murdered?

When fully expelled from the mother and born alive.

Which case establishes that a child must be fully expelled and born alive?

R v Poulton.

Can a foetus be the victim of murder?

No. A foetus is not a person in being.

Which case confirms that a foetus cannot be murdered?

Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994).

Must the umbilical cord be cut before a child is a person in being?

No.

Which case confirms that the umbilical cord need not be cut?

R v Reeves.

What does “under the King’s peace” mean in the definition of murder?

It refers to the criminal jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Which case considered the meaning of “under the King’s peace”?

R v Adebolajo.

What happened in R v Adebolajo?

The defendants killed Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich while claiming to be fighting a war against the British army.

Why was the victim in R v Adebolajo under the King’s peace?

The killing occurred within the jurisdiction of England and Wales rather than lawful warfare.

What does express malice mean in murder?

Intention to kill.

What does implied malice mean in murder?

Intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

What does grievous bodily harm mean for murder?

Serious harm.

Which case defines grievous bodily harm as serious harm?

Saunders.

Is an intention to cause grievous bodily harm sufficient for murder?

Yes.

Which case confirms that intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient for murder?

R v Vickers.

Does malice aforethought require hatred?

No.

Does malice aforethought require premeditation?

No.

Can the intention for murder be formed in the spur of the moment?

Yes.

Is mercy killing a defence to murder?

No.

Which case confirms that mercy killing is not a defence?

Inglis.

What is direct intention for murder?

Death or grievous bodily harm is the defendant’s aim or purpose.

Which case states that direct intention ordinarily carries its natural meaning of aim or purpose?

R v Moloney.

When is oblique intention relevant to murder?

Where death or serious harm was not the defendant’s primary aim but arose as a virtually certain consequence.

What is the Woollin test for oblique intention in murder?

The jury may find intention where death or grievous bodily harm was a virtual certainty and the defendant appreciated that fact.

What is the objective limb of the Woollin test?

Death or grievous bodily harm must have been a virtual certainty.

What is the subjective limb of the Woollin test?

The defendant must have appreciated that death or grievous bodily harm was a virtual certainty.

Which case provides the modern test for oblique intention?

R v Woollin.

Is foresight of virtual certainty identical to intention?

No. It is evidence from which the jury may find intention.

Which case confirms that foresight of virtual certainty is evidence rather than a definition of intention?

R v Matthews and Alleyne.

Is motive the same as intention?

No. Motive explains why the defendant acted, while intention concerns what they meant to do.

Which case confirms that motive is distinct from intention?

Chandler v DPP.

Can motive provide evidence of intention?

Yes.

Which case confirms that motive may be evidence of intention?

R v Hill.

What special defences can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter?

Loss of control and diminished responsibility.

What is the effect of a successful special defence to murder?

The conviction is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

What is the effect of a successful loss-of-control defence?

Murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter and the mandatory life sentence no longer applies.

Which provision confirms that successful loss of control reduces murder to manslaughter?

Section 54(7) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Who bears the legal burden once loss of control is properly raised?

The prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Which provision places the burden of disproving loss of control on the prosecution?

Section 54(5) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Who decides whether loss of control should be left to the jury?

The judge.

Which provision governs whether loss of control is left to the jury?

Section 54(6) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Which case is associated with the judge’s role in deciding whether loss of control goes to the jury?

R v Jewell.

Must every element of loss of control be established?

Yes. Failure of any one element defeats the whole defence.

Which case confirms that failure of one element defeats loss of control?

R v Clinton.

What former defence did loss of control replace?

Provocation.

Which statute replaced provocation with loss of control?

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

What are the three elements of loss of control under section 54(1)?

A loss of self-control, caused by a qualifying trigger, where a person of the defendant’s age and sex with normal tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted similarly.

What does loss of self-control require?

The defendant must have been unable to restrain themselves.

Is mere anger sufficient for loss of control?

No.

Which case distinguishes loss of self-control from mere anger following provocation?

R v Richens.

Must loss of control be sudden?

No.

Which provision confirms that loss of control need not be sudden?

Section 54(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Can delay between the trigger and killing defeat loss of control automatically?

No, although it may make genuine loss of control less likely.

Which case illustrates that delayed reaction does not automatically exclude loss of control?

R v Ahluwalia.

What happened in R v Ahluwalia?

An abused wife killed her husband after a delay.

Who decides whether the defendant actually lost self-control?

The jury as a question of fact.

Can medical evidence support a claim that the defendant lost self-control?

Yes.

What must cause the defendant’s loss of control?

A qualifying trigger under section 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

What are the three possible qualifying triggers?

Fear of serious violence, a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged in extremely grave circumstances, or a combination of both.

What is the fear trigger under section 55(3)?

The defendant feared serious violence against themselves or another identified person.

How does the fear trigger differ from self-defence?

It is a narrower and separate defence requiring fear of serious violence in extremely grave circumstances.

Which case explains the distinction between the fear trigger and self-defence?

R v Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer.

Can loss of control apply where self-defence fails because excessive force was used?

Yes, if the statutory elements of the fear trigger are satisfied.

What happened in R v Martin (Anthony)?

A farmer shot burglars, killing one, and self-defence failed because his force was excessive.

How was the fear trigger relevant in R v Martin (Anthony)?

The defendant’s fear of serious violence could support loss of control despite the unreasonable force used.

What is the anger trigger under section 55(4)?

Things said or done that constituted extremely grave circumstances and caused a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

What three requirements must be satisfied for the anger trigger?

There must be things said or done, extremely grave circumstances, and a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

Is the justifiable sense of being seriously wronged assessed objectively?

Yes.

Which case confirms the objective nature of the justifiable-wrong requirement?

R v Clinton.

Can general stress or circumstances alone constitute the anger trigger?

No. There must be something actually said or done.

Which case confirms that circumstances alone are insufficient for the anger trigger?

R v Acott.

What does “justifiable” mean for the anger trigger?

The sense of serious wrong must accord with society’s norms and values.

Must the triggering act occur in the defendant’s presence?

No. Being informed about the act may be sufficient.

What is the combined trigger under section 55(5)?

A combination of fear of serious violence and a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

What is the objective reaction test under section 54(1)(c)?

Whether a person of the defendant’s age and sex, with normal tolerance and self-restraint and in the defendant’s circumstances, might have reacted similarly.

Who applies the normal-person test in loss-of-control cases?

The jury.

What did DPP v Camplin establish about the objective test?

The gravity of the trigger is assessed in the defendant’s circumstances, but the standard of self-control remains objective.

What happened in DPP v Camplin?

A teenage boy killed a man who had raped and taunted him.

How is the gravity of the trigger assessed under loss of control?

In light of the defendant’s relevant circumstances and characteristics.

How is the required level of self-control assessed?

By reference to a normal person of the defendant’s age and sex with ordinary tolerance and self-restraint.

Can a defendant’s bad temper lower the normal standard of self-control?

No.

Can voluntary intoxication lower the normal standard of self-control?

No.

Can extreme sensitivity lower the normal standard of self-control?

No.

Can PTSD lower the normal standard of tolerance and self-restraint?

No.