1. Murder Revision

2. What is murder? Common law offence Compulsory life sentence
Result crime
Mens rea and Actus reus have to coincide
Must be proved by prosecutor beyond all reasonable doubt Woolmington 1935
Introduction

3. Definition Derives from Lord Coke in the 16th century
Whosoever shall unlawfully kill a reasonable creature in being under the queens peace with malice aforethought express or implied
Introduction

4. Actus Reus Killing Reasonable Creature in Being Under the Queens peace
Unlawfully
Actus Reus

5. Killing Murder = result crime Result crimes require causation
No cause = attempted murder
Murder needs two types of causation
Factual
Legal
Can also be omissions
Actus Reus-Killing(1)

6. Killing-Factual Causation
But, for tests established in the case of white (1910)
Prosecutor must prove
V would not have died ‘as’ they did, ‘when’ they did “but, for” D’s actions
Actus Reus-Killing(2)

7. Killing-Legal Causation
Looks at D’s responsibility &Culpability
3 rules
Consequence resulted from a culpable act
Dalloway (1847)
Act is more than minimal cause
Benge (1985)
No intervening acts
Act of 3rd party breaks chain unless its foreseeable
Pagett (1983)
Act of victim, only when actions are unreasonable
Roberts (1871)
Williams (1992)
Medical intervention
Smith (1959)
Jordan (1956)
Cheshire (1991)
Actus Reus-Killing(3)

8. Reasonable Creature in Being
Murder only when D kills a Independently living Human being ReA (2000)
3 types of victims
Newborns/ Foetus
Coma Victims
Brain dead victims
Every other form of murder is just that
Actus Reus-RCIB(1)

9. Reasonable Creature in Being
Newborns & Foetus
A/G Reference
where a foetus is attached while in the whom and born alive but died at a later date the D will be charged with murder as the baby is a reasonable creature in being at death
Baby must be delivered alive
Enoch (1832)
Must be fully expelled from the mother
Poulton (1832)
Umbilical cord must be cut
Moot point
Child needs not to have taken first breath
Brian
Actus Reus-RCIB(2)

10. Reasonable Creature in Being
Long term comas
Old law
D could not be held liable if v died after a year and a day
Criminal Law Revision Committee
“it would be wrong for a person to remain almost indefinitely at risk for prosecution of murder, a line must be drawn somewhere”
Actus Reus-RCIB(3)

11. Reasonable Creature in Being
Brian dead victim
Point of death is when V is mentally unresponsive
Brain dead is when the Brain stem test fails
Bland (1993)
Malcherek (1981)
Actus Reus-RCIB(4)

12. Under the Queens peace
Killing enemies of the state during the time of war is not murder
R v Page (1953)
Killing prisoners of war is Murder
Killing non enemies of the state, I.E civilians, during conflict is also murder
Actus Reus-UQP

13. Actus Reus- Unlawful (1)
Unlawfully
Lawful Killing
Killing does not need to be unlawful
War – its legal to kill an alien of the state in war
Judicial executions- Nations where death penalty exists
Self defence/ defence of another/ prevention of a crime – force cant be excessive
Was the mistaken belief genuine & honest?
Was the force reasonable under the circumstance?
S76 (2) Immigration and Justice Act 2008
Actus Reus- Unlawful (1)

14. Actus Reus- Unlawful (2)
Unlawfully
Unlawful Killings
Acts and omissions
Cases apply to murder
Gibbons and Procter
Actus Reus- Unlawful (2)

15. Actus Reus- Unlawful (3)
Unlawfully
Authorities
Soldiers and police may kill in line of duty unless done so ultra vires
R v Clegg
Doctors may kill in limited circumstances
Bodkin (1957)
Bland (1993)
Re A (2000)
Actus Reus- Unlawful (3)

16. Mens Rea Malice aforethought express or implied
Can be direct/ indirect intention
Four separate types
Direct express
Direct implied
Indirect Express
Indirect implied
Found in statute Mohan (1976) & common law
Test established in Woolin 1998 also applies
Was the consequence virtually certain?
Did D personally foresee the consequence as being virtually certain?
Mens Rea Introduction

17. Direct intention
D’s primary aim was to kill or cause harm to the victim
Direct intention is two separate things in murder
Direct express- sole intention is to kill
Direct implied- intention to cause gbh with a consequence virtually certain to be death Woolin. But would only be found to have it if P prove to the jury that intention is that of S.18 OAPA 1861
Mens Rea

18. Indirect intention
Where D embraces a course of action where the consequence is virtually certain Woolin 1998
Indirect intent for murder is split in two
Indirect express- knows death is virtually certain yet continues his action
Indirect implied-intention to cause GBH even if the primary aim was not to cause death he should have foresaw harm Cunningham 1981
Mens Rea

19. Problems and Reforms to murder

20. Problems and Reforms to murder
Background
Law Commission report “Murder, manslaughter and Infanticide” heavily criticised current law:
Rickety structure based on shaky foundations
Some elements are outdated
Some elements have changed too much causing uncertainty
Problems and Reforms to murder

21. Problem 1 The piecemeal approach
Problems
Alternate view
law developed bit by bit
defined by numerous cases
meaning of ‘intention’, affects all specific intent offences
S8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967
jury not bound to infer intention from D’s actions was natural and probable
jury to decide whether D did intend or foresee it based on the evidence
To make law coherent it needs codification
Criticism of piecemeal is critising common law
1967 legislation shows
Law is not settled
Codification is no cure
Piecemeal allows social change
If the piecemeal approach for murder is criticised then it is a problem with the law as a whole
Problems & reforms- Problem 1

22. Problem 2 Serious harm rule
Alternative view
D can be charged with murder without the intention to kill
2 d’s with separate moral culpability treated equally
SHR not in Homicide Act 1957
Vickers est SHR which Cunningham confirmed
Public policy to prove intention to kill would lower conviction rate
Burden and standard of proof
Proving ‘foresight of death’ could be problematic
Indirect intent catches dishonest murderers
Problems & reforms- Problem 2

23. Problem 3 Excessive force
problems
Alternate view
Reasonable force = acquittal
Excessive force = conviction
Personality disorders not taken into account but gender and physicality is
Balance needed to prevent vigilante law
Parliament legislated self defence as a defence
Criminal justice and immigration Act S.76 applies doctrine of reasonable force
Coroners and Justice Act allows self defence for loss of control
Problems & reforms- Problem 3

24. Problems & reforms- Problem 4
Problem 4 Duress
Problems & reforms- Problem 4

25. Problems & reforms- Problem 5
Problem 5 Life sentence
problems
Alternate view
Life should not have a minimum term imprisonment
CJA 2003
Life = Serial killers, Sex & sadistic child killers, political assassins
30 years- sex/sadistic killers, radicals, shootings, cop killers
15 years- everyone else
Life = life- murders who are released can go back whenever
Murder is murder and should be distinct
Problems & reforms- Problem 5

26. Problems & reforms- Proposed reforms