MURDER

SPECIFICATION

CONTENT

actus reus and mens rea

GUIDANCE

definition of murder; the actus reus and mens rea requirements of the offence

DEFINING MURDER

  • murder is a common law offence (has grown by case law)

  • defined by Sir Edward Coke as ‘unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King’s peace with malice aforehtought’

  • murder carries a mandatory life sentence

  • 4 ways to unpack:

  • 1. unlawful killing (AR)

  • 2. reasonable person in being (AR)

  • 3. under the king’s peace (AR)

  • 4. malice aforethought (MR)

UNLAWFUL KILLING

‘UNLAWFUL’

  • lawful killings are ones where the accused has a complete and valid justification- e.g self defence or doctors withdrawing treatment

‘KILLING’

  • causing death of victim

  • use rules on act and omission, showing it led to death (R v Gibbens and Proctor)

  • then follow normal causation tests

  • 1. R V WHITE : ‘but for’ . D put cyanide in his mother’s milk intending to kill her, drank some but didn’t finish. Died in night to unrelated cause, not guilty of murder as hadn’t caused death.

  • 2. legal causation: ‘chain of causation’ D’s acts must be a ‘substantial and operating cause of V’s death.’. ‘de minimis’ rule

‘REASONABLE PERSON IN BEING’

  • most simply understood as human being, but also:

  • AG REF NO 3. 1994: Feotus in the womb. V’s mother was stabbed when pregnant with him, prematurely gave birth at 23 weeks. D not charged with murder as courts held feotus not to be ‘reasonable person in being’

  • R V POULTON: Feotus in womb. Mother strangled newborn baby during delivery before fully birthed. Held a baby would need to be ‘fully expelled’ from its mother.

  • R V MALCHEREK: people who are brain dead. D stabbed his wife and led to her being brain dead. Put on life support- machine turned off as no chance of recovery. D caused the death despite not turning of machine.

‘UNDER KING’S PEACE’

  • means not killing the enemy in war time

  • the ‘year and a day rule’ : used to be a rule that death must have occurred within a year and a day for it to be murder. Out of date and abolished by Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.

  • R V BLACKMAN: soldier shot taliban fighter, sentenced to life for murder. Suffering PTSD. Released on grounds of DR.

‘MALICE AFORETHOUGHT’

  • means there is two potential MR for murder:

  • 1. express malice aforethought: intention to kill

  • 2. implied malice aforethought: intention to cause GBH

  • therefore someone can be liable for murder even if not intended

EXPRESS

R V MOLONEY: D didn’t intend to shoot his stepfather but did and accidentally killed him. CH wasn’t sufficient for murder- requires intention.

R V INGLIS: clarified ‘malice’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘with hatred’, indeed- mercy killings satisfy the MR of murder.

IMPLIED

R V VICKERS: D broke into cellar of shop, knew owner was deaf- thought he’d rob without being caught. Was caught and attacked lady (owner) and she died as a result of her injuries. Tried to appeal- didnt intend to kill. But CoA held if D intends to inflict GBh- its a sufficient intention for murder.

R V CUNNINGHAM: D attacked V in pub, believing (wrongly) he was having sex with his wife. Ended up leading to V’s death (the attack). Jury convicted D of murder, as he intended GBH.

  • important to remember MURDER REQUIRES INTENTION- CANT BE RECKLESS

  • remember general rules for intention apply to murder: direct intention (where D intends consequence, so ending someone’s life for murder) and oblique intention (D’s aim was not consequence but result was a virtual certainty of their actions R V WOOLIN)

  • principle of transferred malice applies here too- as usual. As long as intention to kill- it can be transferred to another victim.

exceleration principle- even if someone’s dieing anyways , you cant kill them