Murder Notes
Murder
Homicide vs. Murder
When does a homicide qualify as murder?
Coke's Definition of Murder
Murder is defined as:
"When a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded or hurt die of the wound or hurt, within a year and a day after the same."
Jurisdiction
A person can be charged with murder committed anywhere in England and Wales (excluding Scots law).
Jurisdiction extends to any murder committed in any country by a British citizen.
If the defendant is a British citizen, they can be tried in an English court for a murder allegedly committed in another country.
Governmental diplomats may be involved in such cases.
Actus Reus: Unlawful Killing
The old rule requiring the victim to die within a year and a day was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.
Murder is committed when a person unlawfully kills a human being under the King's peace.
The victim must be a human who is born and not dead (must have taken their first breath).
Rules of factual and legal causation apply; the defendant must cause the death of the victim.
Actus Reus: Elements
The Actus Reus (AR) of murder consists of:
The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King's peace.
1. Defendant Killed
2. A reasonable creature in being
3. Under the King's Peace
4. The Killing was unlawful
D Killed: Act or Omission
The "killing" can occur through an act or an omission.
Omission: Gibbins V Proctor 1918
Facts: A father and his girlfriend failed to feed his daughter, intending to cause her serious harm.
Held: The omission to feed her, with the requisite intent, was sufficient for the AR of murder.
D Killed: Result Crime
Murder is a result crime.
The defendant cannot be found guilty unless their act or omission causes the victim's death.
Example: Kallie shoots Barry in the head, and Barry dies instantly.
Proving Causation
To prove causation:
Factual cause: "But for" the defendant's actions, would the victim have died? (R V White 1910)
Legal cause: Did the defendant cause/inflict the operating and substantial cause of death? (R V Smith)
There was no intervening act.
Intervening Acts and Chain of Causation
There must be a direct link between the defendant's conduct and the consequence (chain of causation).
Breaking the Chain of Causation
The chain can be broken if a sufficiently significant event occurs between the defendant's conduct and the consequence.
Example: Kallie stabs Barry, who needs hospital treatment. The ambulance crashes, causing fatal head injuries. The accident is a major intervening act, and Kallie may not be liable for Barry's death.
Breaking the Chain: Specifics
The chain can be broken by:
An act of a 3rd party.
The victim's own act.
A natural but unpredictable event.
If the defendant's actions cause a foreseeable action by a 3rd party, the defendant is likely to be held responsible.
R V Pagett: The defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield against police fire.
To break the chain, the intervening act must be sufficiently independent of the defendant's conduct and sufficiently serious.
Medical Treatment as Intervening Act
Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation (R V Smith 1959).
Contrast: R v Jordan; R V Cheshire 1991
The defendant shot the victim, who needed a tracheotomy but died due to complications from it. His wounds were virtually healed
Medical treatment would only break the chain if it is so independent of the defendant's acts and potent in causing death.
Life Support and Causation
Switching off life support does not break the chain of causation (R V Malcherek 1981).
The defendant stabbed his wife; she was placed on life support, which was later switched off after tests showed brain death.
Victim's Own Act and Causation
If the defendant causes the victim to react in a foreseeable way, any injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused by the defendant (R V Roberts 1971).
A girl jumped from a car to escape Roberts' sexual advances. The car was traveling at 20-40 mph. The defendant was liable for her injuries.
Unforeseeable Reactions
R V Williams 1992
A hitchhiker jumped from Williams' car and died from head injuries. The car was traveling at 30 mph.
The prosecution alleged that the defendant had attempted to steal the victim's wallet, but the defendant successfully argued that the victim's reaction was disproportionate to the threat.
If the victim reacts in an unforeseeable way, it may break the chain of causation.
The victim's actions must be within the ambit of reasonableness and not so daft as to constitute a novus actus interveniens (a new and intervening act).
Causation Decision Flowchart
Was the defendant's conduct the factual cause of the consequence?
If no, not guilty.
If yes, was the defendant's conduct more than a minimal cause of the consequence?
If no, not guilty.
If yes, did an intervening act break the chain of causation?
If no, the defendant legally and factually caused the consequence and will be guilty if they have the required MR.
If yes, not guilty.
AR Part 2
Kallie Noble
Quick Recap of AR
Four parts of AR:
1. D Killed
2. A reasonable creature in being
3. Under the Kings peace
4. the killing was unlawful
Murder is defined by Coke’s definition as:
"The unlawful killing of a reasonable being and under the Kings (or queens) Peace with Malice aforethought"
D Killed: Summary
An Act or Omission (Gibbens V Proctor 1918)
That causes by proving both factual (R V White 1910) and legal (R V Smith 1959) causation
Without breaking the chain of causation (Act of 3rd party/ V’s own Act /natural but predictable event)
The result (Death)
Chain of Causation: Reminder
To break the chain, the intervening act must be independent and sufficiently potent/serious to stop the defendant from being responsible for the death.
See Cheshire/ Jordan / Malcherek / Roberts on next slides.
Chain of Causation: Key Cases
R V Cheshire 1991
Facts: The defendant shot the victim, who needed a tracheotomy and died of complications. His wounds were virtually healed.
Held: Medical treatment would break the chain only if it is so independent of the defendant’s acts and potent as to cause death.
R V Jordan 1956
Facts: The victim was stabbed; when his wounds were almost healed, he was given a large dose of a drug to which it was known he was allergic.
Held: The defendant was no longer responsible; the medical treatment was independent and potent enough to cause death.
Chain of Causation: Key Cases 2
R v Malcherek 1981
Facts: The defendant stabbed his wife. She was placed on life support, but when tests showed she was brain dead, the machine was switched off.
Held: Switching off life support does not break the chain of causation.
R V Roberts 1971
Facts: The victim jumped from a car to escape from Roberts' sexual advances. The car was traveling between 20 and 40 mph, and the victim was injured by the jump.
Held: The defendant was liable for her injuries, as her reactions/actions were foreseeable.
Reasonable Creature in Being: Meaning
The phrase means a human being; a person must be killed for a murder charge.
Issues:
Is a foetus in the womb a reasonable creature in being?
Is a victim still considered to be alive if they are brain dead but on life support?
Foetus and Homicide
A homicide offense cannot be charged for the killing of a foetus.
The baby must have an existence independent of the Mother to be considered a reasonable creature in being.
It must have been expelled from the Mother's body and have an independent circulation.
The umbilical cord need not be cut.
It is no longer strictly necessary for the child to take its first breath.
AG ref No3 1994
Facts:
The defendant stabbed his girlfriend, who was 23 weeks pregnant. She recovered, but the stab wound caused her a premature birth 7 weeks after the incident.
The baby was born alive but died aged 4 months as a result of the premature birth.
The defendant was charged with the murder of the child.
Held: A foetus was not a reasonable creature in being, so the defendant could not be guilty of the murder or manslaughter of the child. The defendant was acquitted.
AG ref No3 1997
Appeal heard 3 years later:
HOL: agreed that the 94 decision was correct where the foetus dies before birth BUT stated by way of obiter dicta that:
Violence towards a foetus which results in harm suffered after the baby has been born alive can give rise to criminal responsibility.
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter as MR for murder could not be proven.