murder question

Lord Cokes definition of murder is, an unlawful killing of a human being under the kings peace with malice aforethought. According to this definition a murder must be unlawful, as shown in Re A, in Colins case the death was not necessary making it unlawful. The victim must be a human being, as shown in R v Poulton, Thomas is a human being. The act must have taken place under the king’s peace, as shown in R v Page, Thomas was a lawful subject within the realm.

actus reus

To establish the actus reus of murder both factual and legal causation must be proven. Factual causation includes the ‘but for’ test which states that but for the actions or omissions of the defendant the victim wouldn’t have died when and how they did, as shown in R v White. If Colin didn’t stab Thomas he wouldn’t have died when and how he did. Legal causation includes the De minimus rule and the chain of causation. The De minimus rule, as shown in R v Kimsey, states that the defendants conduct must be more than a minimal cause of the victims death, it is clear that Colin’s conduct was the main contributor to Thomas’ death due to the internal injuries that ended up being what caused his death. The chain of causation states that there must be a clear link between the defendants actions and the victims death. The chain can be broken by the victims own actions, this relates to Colin’s case as Thomas refused to seek medical attention that could’ve saved his life. However, R v Williams & Davies shows that the victims actions will not break the chain of causation if they were ‘within the range of reasonable responses which might be expected from a victim placed in that situation’, it could be argued that a reasonable person would go to the hospital after being stabbed, but due to the shock of the encounter he may not have felt any physical harm in the moment and believed he would be okay. It is not likely this would break the chain. Overall the actus reus has been satisfied

mens rea

To establish the mens rea of murder intent must be proven. Under s1 Homicide Act 1957, intent can either be express, where the defendant desired to kill (R v Mohan) or implied, where the defendant desired to cause really serious harm. It would be argued that Colin had implied intent, in the case of R v Woolin it is shown that the defendant has implied intent where their conduct is virtually certain to result in really serious harm and the defendant realises this. It is clear that Colin intended to cause serious harm due to the threats he made. overall Colin has intended to harm Thomas, so the mens rea has been satisfied.

In conclusion, Colin would be criminally liable for Thomas’s death as both the actus reus and mens rea have been proven.