murder

Definition: an unlawful killing of a human being under the kings peace with malice aforethought (express or implied)

  • Unlawful killing

~ R v Malcharek & Steele - doctors turning off life support when V was already brain dead was not an unlawful killing

~ Re A - operating on conjoined twins to save one although it would end the life of the other was not unlawful (necessity - lesser of 2 evils)

~ Omission - R v Gibbons & Proctor - D’s starved a seven year old child to death

Held: their omission to feed the child when they had a duty to act as parents was an unlawful killing

  • Human being

~ R v Poulton - a baby must be born alive & outside the mother to be considered a ‘human being’

  • Kings peace

~ R v Page - although there was a war on, killing a citizen not on the battlefield was not under the kings peace, so it was murder

~ R v Blackman - killing an enemy combatant after they were seriously injured & no longer a threat was a killing under the kings peace

  • Malice aforethought (mens rea)

s1 Homicide Act 1957 - mental states that are required for murder:

  1. Express - intention to kill

~ D desires to kill - R v Mohan

~ D’s conduct is virtually certain to result in V’s death & D realises this - R v Woolin

  1. Implied - intention to cause really serious harm - defined in R v Vickers & confirmed in R v Cunningham

~ D desires to cause really serious harm - R v Mohan

~ D’s conduct is virtually certain to result in really serious harm & D realises this - R v Woolin

  • Causation

Types of crimes:

  1. Conduct crimes - the prohibited behaviour itself forms the actus reus of the offence

  2. State of affairs crimes - the actus reus is formed solely from the existence of a state of affairs - Winzar v CC of Kent

  3. Result crimes - the actus reus must result in a certain outcome

. Factual causation

~ R v White - the ‘but for’ test - but for the acts/omission of D the V wouldnt have died when & how they did

. Legal causation

~ R v Hennigan - De minimus rule - D’s conduct must be a more than minimal cause of the outcome

. Chain of causation

Must be a clear link between D’s actions & V’s death

~ R v Smith / R v Jordon - intervening acts

~ R v Pagett - a human intervention that is foreseeable, instinctively done & for self-preservation will not break the chian

~ R v Cheshire - medical negligence will not break the chain unless it is so independent of D’s acts, & in itself so potent, that the jury regard the contribution made by D as insignificant

This will only be in the most extraordinary & unusual circumstances - R v Jordon

~ R v Blaue - the fact that V refused a blood transfusion on the basis of her religious beliefs did not break the chain of causation - Thin skull rule - those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them

~ R v Williams & Davies - V’s own actions do not break the chain if they were ‘within the range of reasonable responses which might be expected from a victim placed in that situation’

The jury should take any particular characteristics of V into account

~ R v Majoram - V’s response must be foreseeable by an ordinary person in order for the chain to be unbroken