Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
HOMICIDE - Coggle Diagram
HOMICIDE
MURDER
-
Mens rea = intent to kill or cause GBH
- settled in R v Vickers (1957)
'intent'
direct; Moloney (1985)
indirect; Woollin (1999)
recklessness; R v G (2003)
'to kill or cause GBH'
GBH = serious bodily harm
- DPP v Smith (1961)
Criticism
- lack of correspondence between the AR and MR due to the addition of 'intent to cause GBH'
- problems of fair labelling
PARTIAL DEFENCE
LOSS OF CONTROL
Key Facts:
- s.56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 abolishes the defence of provocation and replaces it with loss of control
- only available for murder, not attempted murder; R v Bruzas (1972)
- reduces sentence from murder to manslaughter
- burden of proof is held to a criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt)
1. D's loss of self-control
Test is subjective
-s.54(1)(a) Coroners and Justice Act 2009
loss of control need not be sudden
- s.54(2) Coroners and Justice Act 2009
at the time of killing there needs to be an inability to maintain self-control not a failure
- R v Rickens (1993)
- R v Jewell (2014); Court ruled no loss of control due to lag time though length of time needed is unclear
DISREGUARDED
when D acts in a 'considered desire for revenge'
- s. 54(4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009
when D's loss of self-control is caused by something other than a human agent
-
3. Objectively Understandable
test is qualified by s.54(3) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Codified Jerrey v Holley (2005)Two stage Test:
1) look at background evidence; subjective
- all these circumstances are relevant; R v Camplin (1978)
2) assess D's general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint against the reasonable person
- all things are irrelevant apart from age and sex; R v Asmelash (2013)
DIMINSHED RESPONSIBIITY
Key Facts:
R v Brennan (2015)
- where expert evidence is unchallenged and uncontradicted, the jury must accept it
- where experts disagree, the jury can come to their own conclusion
- D has a legal burden of providing DR; s.2(2) Homicide Act 1957
- D's burden of proof is to the civil standard ( balance of probability) not the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt)
- can be committed by act or omission
4. Explanation of D's acts or omissions
Is there a causal link between D's abnormality of mental functioning and the killing of V?
- R v Sutcliffe (1983); Yorkshire Ripper
- do not confuse this with factual and legal causation
- does not need to be the sole cause of D's conduct
3. Substantial impairment of D's ability in 1 or more ways; s.2(1)(b)
Substantial = weighty, significant or appreciated impairment
- R v Golds (2016)
- problem = some may use the old definitons from R v Lloyd (1967)
- problem = differs to the definition of substantial under legal causation
Substantial + Intoxicated
voluntary intoxication = R v Dietschmann (2003)
Involuntary intoxication = the effect of intoxication can count; R v Wood (2008)Just one of the abilities to be impaired
- Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (2006)To form a rational judgement;* s.2(1)(A)(b)
- Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (2006)*To exercise self-control; s.2(1)(A)(c)
- Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide (2006)
- R v Blackman (2017)
2. Arising from a Medical Condition; s.2(1)(a)
Recognised medical condition by:
- WHO International Classification of Diseases
- American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V)
reference to WHO od DSM-V isn't legally required but is appreciated Cases
- Morbid jealousy doesn't count; R v Vinagre (1979)
- just because a medical condition is recognised, doesn't mean it'll be sufficient; R v Douds (2012)
- battered spouse syndrome used as a medical condition; R v Hobson (1998)
1. Abnormality of mental functioning; s.2(1)
Refers to cognitive and volitional control of the mental functioning
abnormal = so different from that of the ordinary person, that a reasonable person would term it abnormal
- R v Byrne (1960)
Key Facts:
- only applies to murder
- reformed by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
-
RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER
Key Facts:
- result crime
- really need reckless manslaughter when D kills V via an omission, and where D's omission does not pose an objectively foreseeable risk of death; cannot fall into GNW
Actus Reus = D kills V foreseeing a risk of death or serious injury
Mens Rea = recklessness in relation to foresight of a risk of death or GBH
- R v Lidar (2000)
-
Key Facts:
- mercy killings technically count as murder
- murder has mandatory life sentence
- murder is a result crime
- murder can be done through acts or omissions