Murder

Chief Justice Coke: "murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's Peace with malice aforethought expressed or implied

Actus Reus

has a mandatory life sentence

Mens Rea

1) reasonable creature in being

brain dead

the actus reus omission, but must cause the V's death

the 'year and a day' rule

killing isn't unlawful if it's done in self defence or in the prevention of crime

causation

the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the queen's peace

means a human being

a foetus

the child must have an 'existence independent from the mother'

HL stated that if the foetus is injured and then born alive but dies afterwards as a result of the injuries, this can constitute the actus reus of either murder or manslaughter

a homicide offence cannot be charged for killikg a foetus

not clear but in most cases brain dead = death

R v Malcharek & R v Steel

court ruled that brain dead = death

old rule used to be that death had to within a year & a day of the unlawful act

legal & factual causation?

break in the chain of causation?

for an omission to apply, D must be under a duty

abolished by the law reform act (1996) due to medical advances

now no time limit, however, if it occurs 3 years and then AG consent needed to prosecute

queen's peace

killing an enemy in the course of war is not murder

developed by the courts over time so is a product of common law

murder is not a statutory

implied

specific intent offence

express

malice aforethought, express or implied

intent to kill

intent to cause s18 gbh

R v Vickers

a person may be found guilty of murder even though he did not intend to kill

direct intent

intent to bring about a particular consequence

R v Mohan

oblique intent

consequence must be a 'virtual certainty' & D must realise it

R v Woolin

R v Matthews & Alleyne

only evidence which jury may take into consideration

how to word mens rea in exam question

The mens rea for murder is 'malice aforethought expressed or implied'. Expressed malice intent is the intent to kill and implied malice is the intent to cause s18 GBH. Implied malice is set out in the case R v Vickers. Intention can either be direct, where the defendant seeks to bring about a particular outcome as in R v Mohan, or oblique. in R v Woolin the defendant threw his baby across the room in a fit of anger. In reducing his conviction to manslaughter because of misdirection, the HL said that the defendant could have oblique intent if the defendant had forseen the outcome as being a virtual certainty. In R v Matthews & Alleyne the court said thatthis was only evidence from which a jury might draw such conclusion. in this case....