Unlawful killing as a result of the defendant's gross negligence.
The defendant’s conduct falls below the standard of a reasonable person.
Directly causes the death of the victim.
Case Law
R v Adomako (1994):
Established key principles for GNM.
Anesthetist failed to notice a patient’s oxygen supply was disconnected, resulting in the patient's death.
Confirmed that GNM requires a breach of duty that leads to death and is grossly negligent.
R v Wacker (2002):
Involved smuggling illegal immigrants in a lorry.
Failure to provide proper ventilation resulted in deaths.
Reinforced that a duty of care can exist even in criminal activity.
Key Elements of GNM (Adomako)
Duty of Care (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]):
The defendant must owe the victim a duty of care.
Arises from relationships or situations where the defendant creates a dangerous situation.
Breach of Duty:
The defendant must breach this duty by acting in a way that a reasonable person would not.
Judged by how the defendant’s conduct falls below the standard of care.
Causation:
The breach of duty must cause the victim's death.
Factual causation: "but for" test.
Legal causation: whether the breach was linked to the death.
Gross Negligence:
The negligence must be gross, meaning it goes beyond ordinary carelessness.
Involves a serious disregard for the life and safety of others.
Murder
Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
The defendant must have had the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) to the victim.
Defined by both the actus reus (the physical act of killing) and mens rea (the mental state of the defendant).
Actus Reus of Murder
Lord Coke’s Definition:
The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the King's peace.
Unlawful Killing:
The killing must not be legally justified (e.g., self-defence or during wartime).
Human Being:
The victim must be a living person who has been born (not an unborn child, as clarified in Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994)).
King’s Peace:
The act of killing must not occur during a state of war or other legally justified circumstance (such as self-defence).
Mens Rea of Murder
Requires intent to either kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Two types of intent:
Direct Intent to Kill:
The defendant’s purpose or aim is to bring about the death of the victim.
Example: shooting someone with the aim of killing them.
Oblique Intent to Cause GBH:
The defendant may not have the direct aim to kill the victim, but they intend to cause serious harm (GBH) and death is a foreseeable consequence of their actions.
Example: stabbing someone with the intent to seriously injure them, but the victim dies.
Key Cases for Murder
R v Cunningham (1982):
Malice aforethought can be established by proving intent to cause GBH, even if the defendant did not intend to kill the victim.
Cunningham attacked his girlfriend, causing serious injuries. The court held that the intent to cause grievous bodily harm was sufficient to prove malice aforethought, establishing the mens rea for murder.
R v Mohan (1975):
Defined direct intent for murder, stating that a defendant’s aim or purpose must be to bring about a particular result (e.g., death).
Mohan deliberately drove towards a police officer with the aim to hit him. The court ruled that Mohan’s actions were clearly intentional and aimed at causing harm, satisfying the mens rea for murder.
Unborn Child and Murder
Under English law, an unborn child is not considered a "reasonable creature in being" for the purposes of murder.
Established in Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994).
A fetus is not legally considered a person under homicide law until birth.
The death of an unborn child typically does not qualify as murder.
Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994):
Confirmed that an unborn child is not a "reasonable creature in being" for the purpose of murder.
Involved the death of a fetus after harm was caused to the mother, and the law ruled that this could not be considered murder.
Other charges: While murder cannot be charged for the death of an unborn child, the death may still be considered for charges like manslaughter or infanticide.
R v F (2007):
Reaffirmed that an unborn child cannot be the victim of murder under English law but may be considered under manslaughter if the fetus dies due to unlawful actions.
Loss of Control – Defence to Murder
A partial defence to murder under s.54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Can reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant can show they lost self-control at the time of the killing.
Key elements
Loss of self-control
Qualifying trigger
Objective test
Loss of Self-Control
The defendant must have lost their ability to control their actions or emotions at the time of the killing.
Key Case: R v Jewell (2014) – The loss of control must be significant, not just a momentary flash of anger or frustration.
Qualifying Trigger
The defendant’s loss of self-control must have been triggered by one or more qualifying events:
Fear of serious violence (e.g., if the defendant feared for their life or safety).
A thing said or done (a situation where the victim’s conduct was extreme enough to provoke the defendant’s loss of control).
Key Case: R v Duffy (1949) – “A thing said or done” can include actions or words that cause extreme provocation.
Objective Test
Would a reasonable person (someone of normal self- restraint) have lost control in the same circumstances?
Key Case: R v Camplin (1978) – The court can consider the characteristics of the defendant (e.g., age or sex) when deciding if the loss of control was reasonable.