Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

murder - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Facts
        
        • Tony Bland was a persistent vegetative state and had no hope of recovery
        
        • Hospital with parents applied for a declaration that it might lawfully discontinue life sustaining treatment and life support
        
        • Official solicitor appealed against Court of Appeal order permitting it
      - Outcome:
        
        • While euthanasia is unlawful as it is a positive act that amounts to murder, removal of life support is lawful as it is an omission
      - Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993:
      - Facts: tony bland, a victim of the Hillsborough disaster who was left in an persistent vegetative state- could lawfully have treatment withdrawn to effectively end his life
      - R v Clegg 1995:
      - Facts: a soldier at a checkpoint in northern Ireland opened fire on a car which was not stopping. The death was not lawful and self defence was not allowed as the fatal bullet was fired as the car drove away from the checkpoint.
    - - • Appeal dismissed – the proposed operation would be lawful
      - • The three judges agreed on the outcome but differed in their analysis
      - • Robert LJ’s reasoning supports the definition of intention as purpose i.e., direction intention, rather than foresight of an inevitable consequence i.e., oblique intention
      - • Brooke LJ held that necessity can be a defence to murder in limited circumstances to avoid an inevitable and irreparable evil
    - - • Mary and Jodie were conjoined twins and both would die if not separated
      - • If they were separated, Mary would die but Jodie would have a strong chance of survival
      - • The doctors applied to the court for a declaration that it would be lawful i.e., that it does not amount to murder
    - - 1 if the defendant has a valid defence (self defence, prevention of crime, necessity)
      - 2 if they are a doctor withdrawing treatment
- - - - This was a mercy killing where the mother thought she was doing the best for her son. She was still guilty of murder.
      - Aforethought’:
        
        Does not require pre-planning. The ‘thought’ or intention can occur immediately beforehand
        
        Intention to Kill is referred to as ‘express malice’:
        
        R v Mohan 1975
        
        A decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, [the prohibited consequence], no matter whether the accused desired that consequence or not”.
        
        R v Nedrick 1986 / R v Woollin 1998
        
        Includes indirect/oblique intention – where it is not D’s main aim but D knows it is a virtually certain consequence.
        
        Intention to Commit GBH is referred to as ‘implied malice’:
        
        R v Vickers 1975
        
        “Malice aforethought … has always been defined in English law as either an express intention to kill, … or implied where, by a voluntary act, the accused intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim, and the victim died as the result
        
        R v Cunningham 1982
        
        Confirmed Vickers is still good law. D beat up another man who died from a brain injury. He intended GBH but not death. He was still guilty of murder.
- - - - Therefore a soldier who kills during wartime or in battle is not guilty of murder because the death was not under the Queen’s peace.
      - There is no case law here, but it is presumed this would only apply to death caused during sanctioned missions/operations.
      - Therefore if a soldier were to kill a fellow soldier in the barracks this could still be murder.