Fatal Offences

Charleton notes the evolution of the law on murder and manslaughter from the common law offence of homicide.
A jury may return a verdict of manslaughter instead of murder, reflecting the historic link between the two offences.
Both murder and manslaughter have an actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind).

The actus reus is defined as the unlawful killing of a person.
Only human beings can be victims; animals cannot be murdered.
For a killing to be lawful, justifiable reasons like self-defense or lawful arrest must apply.
Prosecution must provide proof of death and that the accused hastened the victim's death, regardless of the victim's preexisting conditions.
Causation: The relationship between the accused's actions and the victim's death is crucial; it must be scientifically proven if the accused substantially contributed to the death.

The court held that the defendant who stabbed the victim was responsible for the death, despite medical negligence reducing recovery chances.

An event or act occurring after the accused's action can break the chain of causation only if it is unforeseeable (known as an intervening cause).
Bush v Commonwealth (1880) illustrates that an unrelated event (like a medical complication) can break this chain.

Accused must be of sound mind and above legal age of criminal responsibility.
Under Children Act 2001, legal age of criminal responsibility generally starts at 12, with provisions for children aged 10 and 11 for serious felonies.

Conviction can still occur without the victim's body if sufficient circumstantial evidence exists.
Attorney General v Ball (1936) demonstrates that strong blood evidence led to a conviction despite the body being absent.

Murder is the most serious criminal offence, with a mandatory life sentence imposed on conviction.
For conviction, the prosecution must prove both actus reus and mens rea.

Defined under Criminal Justice Act 1964, it includes the intent to kill or cause serious injury.
DPP v Doohan [2002] exemplifies sufficient intent for murder if the act resulted in death, whether the intent was specifically lethal or not.
The doctrine of transferred malice allows conviction for murder even if the intended victim differs.
Presumption of intent involves a two-stage test: whether the death was a probable consequence of the actions and whether the accused had that foreknowledge.

Criminal Justice Act 1964 abolished the death penalty but created capital murder for specific situations (e.g., killing a Garda).
Distinction between murder and capital murder requires proof of mens rea regarding the victim's status.

The difference between murder and manslaughter largely concerns the mental aspect—voluntary manslaughter exists where the intent to kill or seriously injure lacks sufficient grounds.
Manslaughter Categories:
1. Voluntary Manslaughter - Intent exists but is mitigated by provocation or other defenses.
2. Involuntary Manslaughter - No intention to kill; includes three categories:
  - Killing through an assault.
  - Killing by dangerous acts.
  - Killing through criminal negligence.

Manslaughter by Assault:
- Defined through assault that results in unintended death as seen in R v Hozler [1968].
Manslaughter by Unlawful and Dangerous Act:
- Recognition of dangerous behavior (e.g., R v Larkin) leading to unintended death.
Manslaughter by Criminal Negligence:
- Proved through gross negligence causing a death, outlined in Prentice, Adomako and Holloway [1993].

Reduces murder convictions based on mitigating factors:
1. Provocation.
2. Excessive self-defense.
3. Diminished responsibility.
These defenses do not absolve liability but reduce the charge.