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....