Murder notes - Homicide law PDF

Preview

Summary

Homicide law...

Description

Murder: homicide act 1957 Criminal law = need both elements AR+MR Definition by Lord Coke: The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the king or queens peace, with malice aforethought expressed or implied. Actus reus:  Unlawful killing – not unlawful if done in self-defence or in prevention of crime and D used reasonable force in circumstances. Must be voluntary act Hill v Baxter/ R v Mitchell, muscle spasms/ no control over actions = no AR criminal law concerned with fault. Exceptions state of affairs cases – Larsonneur.  Reasonable creature in being  Under the queens peace  Can be act or omission but must cause the death of V, murder = result crime D not guilty unless their act/ omission is the direct cause of death. Chain of causation can’t be broken (novus actus intervenes) Omissions: Stephen J – normal rule- omission can’t make a person guilty of offence. Exceptions -omission sufficient for AR where there is a duty to act. 1. Contractual duty – Pittwood – railway crossing keeper failed to do duty to close gates when train crossing, person struck, guilty manslaughter (didn’t have intention). 2. Duty because of Relationship – Gibbins and Proctor – parent duty to care for young children, deliberately starved to death, guilty of murder(had intention) 3. Voluntary duty – Stone and Dobbinson – elderly sister died malnutrition, guilty manslaughter. 4. D set in motion chain of events – Miller – accidently started but didn’t attempt to put out fire, convicted arson, s3 criminal damage act 1971. 5. Official position – Dytham – police officer on duty failed to intervene when bouncer kick person to death, guilty of misconduct in a public offence. 6. Statutory duty – s6 Road Traffic Act 1988 – failing provide breath specimen Reasonable creature in being: For murder to be committed a human being must be killed.  Foetus – killing is not murder. Child has to have existence independent of its mother to be creature in being. However umbilical cord connecting the child to mother need not have been cut/ need not have taken its first breath to be reasonable creature in being. – Attorney General reference no 3/ 1944 – where foetus injured and child born alive but dies after as a result of injuries, sufficient for AR of murder/ manslaughter.  Brain dead – not considered as reasonable creature in being. Docs allowed to switch off life-support machines without being liable for death – Malcherek – docs carried many not all tests for brain dead, switching off life support machine didn’t break chain of causation.



Year and a day rule – death must’ve occurred within a yr and day of unlawful act – advances in medical knowledge mean rule is outdated – life support machines keeping V alive for more than year and a day would mean attacker cant be charged with murder – rule abolished law reform, no time limit when death may occur. 3 yrs + consent of Attorney General needed to prosecute.

Queens peace: Killing o enemy in the course of war = not murder. Killing of prisoner of war would be sufficient for AR murder. Causation: Prosecution has to show factual cause of consequence, legal cause of consequence and no intervening acts to break chain of causation.  Factual – D only guilty if consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ D conduct – Pagett – used pregnant girlfriend as a shield from police gunfire, convicted manslaughter./ White – D actions not factual cause not guilty of murder, guilty attempted.  Legal – D conduct must be more than minimal cause of consequence need not be substantial cause. – Cato – V prepared injection heroin, D injected into V (died) convicted manslaughter./ Kimsey – COA stated might be more than one person whose act contributed to death D can be guilty even though conduct wasn’t the only cause of death. Thin skill rule – D must take V as found – Blaue – V Jehovah witness, D stabbed V, V refused blood transfusion because of beliefs and died, D guilty murder.  Novus actus intervenes – chain can be broken by, act third party, victims own act, natural/ unpredictable event. If D actions causes foreseeable action by 3rd party, likely held to have caused consequences – Pagget. Medical treatment – unlikely to break unless independent of D act and in itself so potent in causing death – Smith – soldier stabbed another soldier, V poor medical treatment which affected chances of recovery, D guilty as stab wound still operating and substantial cause of death chain not broken. Chain broken in medical – Jordan – V stabbed, wounds almost healed, given large dose of antibiotics to which known he was allergic, actions of doc intervening act which caused death D not guilty of murder. Victims own act – D causes v to react in foreseeable way then injury to V caused by D – Roberts – girl jump out of moving vehicle escape sexual advances Unreasonable reaction – Williams – hitch hiker jumped out car died due to D attempting to steal V wallet act wasn’t foreseeable or proportionate to threat. Mens Rea:  Malice aforethought expressed – intention to kill  Implied – intention to cause gbh D has MR for murder with both, guilty even if don’t have intention to kill but results in death by gbh – Vickers – D intention to cause gbh and V dies is sufficient in enlgish law to imply malice aforethought. Decision confirmed by HOL in Cunningham- intention to cause serious harm sufficient MR murder. Dpp v Smith – gbh “really serious”



 



Foresight of consequences – oblique intent, D main aim not death of V, but in achieving aim death or serious injury occurs. S8 CJA 1967 – D must intend to forsee a result so in murder D not guilty of murder unless he foresaw that act would cause death/ serious injury.- Woolin – throwing baby at cot, hit the wall died, substantial risk of serious harm, convicted manslaughter. Jury can find intention if death/ serious injury was virtual certainty as result of D act and D appreciated this. Moloney –D and V (stepdad/ son) drunk game of reloading guns stepfather said he “hadn’t got the guts” to pull trigger, D didn’t aim shot V, died, no intention to cause serious harm or death, conviction quashed on appeal. Direct intent – D intended to cause death or serious injury, deliberate killing Transferred malice – D guilty if intended to commit similar crime but against diff V, MR moves from intended V to actual V. – Latimer – D aimed belt at man in pub belt struck woman in face instead, guilty assault against woman instead. – Mitchell – D tried push through queue post office, punched man causing domino effect elderly woman fell died of injuries few days later, convicted unlawful act manslaughter. (D involuntarily unlawfully kills when committing a crime) Coincidence of AR & MR – both must be present same time to be guilty of crime, Thabo Meli v R – court decide if AR/ MR present together, if not D not guilty of murder, decided two parts of Ds acts couldn’t be divided as both acts were part of the plan to murder and if had MR to murder at any point during acts = guilty.

Sentencing:  D 18+ convicted murder – judge pass mandatory life sentence of life imprisonment, judge can’t give diff sentence if feel not blameworthy as deliberate killer / no discretion in imposing sentence. – special defences available (diminished responsibility & loss of control) reduce sentence from murder to manslaughter, give judge greater flexibility in sentencing.  Mandatory life imprisonment – judge set min term D must serve before making application for release on license is decided. CJA 2003. - Whole life term – exceptionally serious cases ( premeditated killing of 2+, sexual/sadistic child murders, politically motivated murders) – offender never released from prison. - 30 yrs – murders of police/ prison guards, murders w firearms, sexual sadistic killing, racially orientated killings. - 15 yrs – other murders.  Offenders 10- 17 yrs found guilty murder, judge has to order they be detained at her majesty’s pleasure.

Law reform murder:  Developed bit by bit – through cases not coherent whole, may be gaps in law. Problems with meaning of intention, s8 CJA 1967 tried to make law clear.  D can be convicted of murder even though intended serious harm (serious harm rule), Law commission murder, manslaughter, infanticide report – stated in their view present offence of murder to wide ie guilty if cause gbh without intending to kill





results in death, Homicide Act 1957 stated D not guilty unless D realised conduct might result in death. Mandatory life sentence – CJA 2003 guidelines don’t allow sufficient differentiation to cover wide variety of levels of blameworthiness, judge cant decrease if they believe D not blame worthy. No defence of self-defence if excessive force used ‘ no defence of duress murder....