Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Murder - Coggle Diagram
Murder
What is it?
-
-
Human being - does not include an unborn child as in law a child becomes a child when they take their first breath - AG’s ref no.3 1994
-
Unlawful killing - cannot be out of self defence, death penalty, double effect - Jean Charles
-
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the queen’s peace with malice aforethought - LJ Coke in 17th century
-
Mens Rea
-
-
-
Oblique Intent - it was not the D’s aim or purpose, but the consequence occurred anyway as to their actions.
-
Nedrick - D put paraffin coated newspaper through the V’s letterbox and set it alight, the V died and D was liable. He did not aim to kill but death was a vcc.
-
Woollin - D became frustrated with his 3 month old son, the then threw him into the pram, 4 feet away and missed. The baby died, D’s aim was not to kill the baby it was to shut him up but it was a vcc that the baby would have been seriously injured.
-
Matthews and Alleyne - D’s chased the V onto a bridge and forced him to jump off it despite the V claiming he could not swim. D’s aim was not to kill him it was to make V jump in the river but it was a vcc that he would have died if it was true that he could not swim.
-
Transferred Malice - if the D has the MR for the offence and sets out to kill someone but by chance kills someone else, in the interests of justice, the D is then still liable.
Pemblition - the ar and the mr have to match, D threw a stone at someone and they ducked and it hit a window instead it hit and broke a window, the conviction was quashed
Gnango - the D and another (bandana man) shot at each other and bm shot an innocent bystander, the police could not find bm and so convicted D of the murder as the SC held that this principle transferred to this case as D participated in the attempted murder and so the mr could be transferred.
Latimer - D took a belt and tried to hit someone with it, instead he hit the V with it, his malice has transferred from one person to the other.
Actus Reus
Legal Causation:
Intervening Acts:
Acts of Victim - they will only stop the D from being the cause if they are ‘unforeseeable’ - something ‘daft or unexpected’ (Roberts)
Roberts - D tried to sexually assault the V in the car and so the V jumped out of the car while it was moving. V’s actions were not ‘daft or unexpected’, so the D was still liable.
Williams and Davies - D picked up a hitchhiker, the D was accused of robbing the V, but that was difficult to prove, V’s reactions had to be within the range of responses.
Self neglect - not seeking medical treatment, this is unlikely to break the chain.
Dear - D went after a man who sexually assaulted his daughter, repeatedly slashed him, V saw medical treatment but then re opened his stitches and died two days after, it was believed to be a suicide attempt. D was still liable.
-
Holland - D was involved in a fight, there was a deep cut to the V’s finger, V did not get medical treatment or medical assistance, it finally became infected and needed amputating, the V refused and died, D was still the cause.
Acts of a third party - Act of the third party have to overtake and overwhelm the acts of the D and render them insignificant. (Cheshire)
Cheshire - D shot the V in the stomach, the V went to hospital, the wounds were no longer life threatening he had an emergency tracheotomy which lead to her death. D was still liable because the treatment was still related to the original injury.
Smith - V was stabbed twice by a soldier, he was dropped on the way to treatment and received thoroughly bad medical treatment, D was still the cause of death as the original injury was still ‘opereating and substantive’
If the D’s action remain ‘operating and substantial cause’ the D will likely still be liable - (Smith)
Jordan - D stabbed the victim, they went to hospital 8 days later the V was given antibiotics which the V was allergic to, he was given too much liquids also and the wound was beginning to heal. The treatment was ‘palpably wrong’, D was not liable.
Doctors will only break the chain if the actions are so independent of the D’s contribution and so potent they render the D’s actions insignificant (Jordan)
Act of God - a natural even like a tsunami or lightning strike can break the chain if it was unforeseeable.
Thin Skull Rule - D will still be liable for full extent of the crime if the V had a pre-existing vulnerability. The D must ‘take his victim as he finds them’, includes the whole man not just physical.
Blaue - Jehovah’s witness refused a blood transfusion, which would have saved her life due to religious beliefs, D was still responsible for her death.
De Minimis Principle - D does not need to be the sole cause of the consequence, or even the main cause, they just need to be a more than minimal cause - Kimsey
-
-