New Microsoft Word Document PDF

Preview

Summary

The definition of murder, although adapted to be relevant in a modern context,...

Description

Definition of Murder The definition of murder, although adapted to be relevant in a modern context, remains as that set out by Sir Edward Coke. Murder occurs, therefore, where a person unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought (Coke’s Institutes, 3 Co Inst 47). Examination Consideration It is likely that this definition would be required in almost all questions on murder. It is a good idea to learn it. The actus reus of murder therefore requires the unlawful killing of any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen’s peace. The mens rea, malice aforethought.

Unlawful Killing Killing means causing death and the approach in establishing the existence of this element is the same as that discussed in relation to causation. The killing will be unlawful unless there is some justification for it, such as selfdefence. Case in focus - Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 In this judgment, permission of the court was sought for the withdrawal of life saving treatment from a patient. It was held that there is a distinction between withdrawing treatment that may sustain life in the patient’s best interest and actively administering a drug that might bring about the patient’s death. The latter would be murder, the former would not. R v Inglis [2011] 1 WLR 1110 In this case, a mother deliberately killed her terminally ill son by injecting him with heroin. Following Bland the fact that the mother saw her actions as an act of mercy was irrelevant. Mercy killing was and is unlawful and therefore the mother was liable for her son’s murder. It used to be the case that where death occurred beyond a year and a day following the acts of the defendant, no conviction for murder could be brought. This was known as the ‘year and a day rule’ and was abolished by the provisions of the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996 for all acts committed after 17 th June 1996. However, section 2 of the 1996 Act provides that permission must be obtained from the Attorney-General before a

prosecution can be brought where the act of the defendant occurred more than three years before the death of the victim. Any Reasonable Creature in Rerum Natura This element is most simply defined as any human being. A baby does not fulfil these requirements until it has been fully born. Unborn foetuses, however advanced in their development and close to birth, cannot be murdered (A-G’s Ref (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 WLR 421). Although murder can occur if it is possible to show that the defendant intended to kill the mother and that they also intended that the child should die soon after being born. In R v Poulton(1832) 5 C & P 329 it was held that a baby would not satisfy the requirement of being born until fully expelled from it mother. It is however necessary that, even if fully expelled, the baby must exist separate from its mother, even if just briefly (R v Crutchley(1837) 7 C & P 814). In other words, the baby must be alive as a distinct individual before it can be murdered. However, as mentioned above, the act that causes the baby’s death can occur whilst it is still in utero providing that it lives independently briefly before dying.

Under the Queen’s Peace It is recognised that this term may have had a specific meaning in Coke’s time that has been lost in the subsequent period (R v Page [1954] 1 QB 170). In a modern context, section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 provides that where a person is killed, whether or not they are one of the Queen’s subjects, by a subject of the Queen outside of Her jurisdiction - that is anywhere other than England or Wales - they can be tried and convicted in England or Wales. This section applies to where the entire actus reus takes place abroad (the act causing the death and the death itself). Where only one part of the actus reus takes place abroad, section 10 of the 1861 Act applies. This section removes the requirement for the defendant to be a subject of the Queen. Although the provision suggests that an act committed by a foreigner abroad may render them liable to the English courts if the death occurs in England, it seems that this is not the case (R v Lewis(1857) Dears & B 182), although it does seem that an act committed in England and a subsequent death abroad makes the defendant liable in England....