Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Murder - Coggle Diagram
Murder
-
What is the conduct, circumstance and result elements for murder?
-
Circumstance: Actus reus: V must be a person, under the King's pece, killing must be unlawful and mens rea: knowledge that V is a human, that V is under King's peace, lack of belief in lawfulness
-
Relevant case law
Gibbins and Proctor [1918]
- D1 and new partner D2 failed to feed D1's child (V), resulting in V's death
- D1 and D2 acted with intention (at least) to cause serious bodily harm
- Convicted of murder
D1 liable for omission based on familial duty
- D2 liable based on her assumption of a duty (responsible for buying food)
-
Causation for murder?
Causing death: D’s act/omission must cause V’s death; this requires general rules of factualand legal causation.o‘Causing death’ includes any ‘acceleration of death’ to relieve or end suffering, D stillcommits murder
-
Defences to murder
- Doctors and the treatment of terminally ill patients
- Doctor satisfies the actus reus of murder because their conduct in prescribing drugs accelerates the patient’s death and causing death includes an act that accelerates death.- Mens rea: although doctor doesn’t directly intend to kill/cause GBH bc they didn’t act in order to bring that result, the shortening of life is a virtually certain consequence of their conduct and their knowledge of this is likely to amount to an oblique intention to kill – thus,elements of murder are satisfied.
- Adams [1957]
- D, doctor charged with murder having eased the passing of several patients with morphine.
- Held: not guilty
- Devlin J: no special defence for doctors but ‘he is entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relive pain and suffering even if measures may incidentally shorten life.’
- Doctrine of double effect
- Bland [1993]
- Lord Goff established a rule that a doctor may, lawfull administer painkilling drugs, despite the fact that he knows than an incidental effect of that application will be to abbreviate the patient's life
Partial Defences
Partial Defences:- If one of these partial defences is satisfied, then D’s liability for murder will be reduced to voluntary manslaughter.
- Only applies to murder.
- 3 partial defences to murder:
1) Loss of self-control: D kills while out of control owing to fear or serious violence or by extremely grave circumstances giving them justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
2) Diminished responsibility: D’s recognised medical condition led to an abnormality of mind and substantially impairedtheir capacity causing them to kill.
3) Suicide pact: - D kills V in pursuance of an agreement that they will both die together.
Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter: D satisfies both actus reus and mens rea of murder, but also fulfilsthe elements of a partial defence that reduces their liability to manslaughter (partialdefence)
Involuntary manslaughter: D doesn’t satisfy the mens rea for murder but becomes liable for manslaughter because their conduct and mental state satisfy the elements of a lesser involuntary manslaughter (separate offence).
-
-
Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter arises where D does not satisfy the mens rea for murder, so does not commit murder, but commits a lesser manslaughter offence
The three types of manslaughter offences are:
- Unlawful act manslaughter/constructive manslaughter: D commits criminal act in dangerous circumstances, and this causes death of V
- Gross negligence manslaughter: D causes V's death through criminal negligence
- Reckless manslaughter: D causes V's death, being reckless as to causing death or GBH
Lamb [1967]:
D pointed loaded gun at V as a joke and neither of them knew how the gun worked.
- D pulled trigger neither realised that gun would revolve, and bullet would fire.
- V was killed.- Held: guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
- CA: appeal allowed. The base offence (assault/battery) wasn’t complete because D lacked mens rea – he didn’t intend or foresee a risk of harm to V.
- Unlawful act must be complete e.g., actus reus and mens rea
AG's Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998]:
- D stabbed his girlfriend, with the intention required for murder and knowing she was pregnant.
- GF survived the attack but caused premature labour.
- GF baby (V) was born but only survived 4 months in hospital before died.
- Held: no liability for murder or UAM
- CA: D should’ve been liable for murder using transferred malice.
- HoL: D shouldn’t have been liable as there can be no transfer malice BUT should’ve been liable for UAM
Kennedy (No 2) [2007]:
- Clarified that there can be no liability for UAM in drug supply cases.
- D supplied V with prepared heroin, V self-injected and died as a result
- HoL: quashing D’s conviction of UAM – D wasn’t guilty because he wasn’t the legal cause of V’s death.
Dhaliwal [2006]:
- D verbally abused wife for years and wife committed suicide
- Held: D not guilty as he didn’t cause the death of V; whilst mental harm was classified as harm, mere emotions aren’t enough to qualify
- D’s wife didn’t commit suicide as an immediate and reasonable response to the verbal abuse but acted voluntarily.
Wallace [2018]:
Key points: requirement of a voluntary act by the victim/3rd party for the novus actus interveniens rule to apply and break the chain of causation can be interpreted to require an intervening act committed with ‘free volition’.
- D (ex-partner of V) poured acid onto V’s face
- V disfigured and travelled to Belgium and requested to be legally euthanised
- D’s counsel argued on the case of murder that legal causation was not present as act of doctor’s injection constituted a novus actus interveniens.
- Crown Court withdrew case of murder from jury.- Held: CA, appeal allowed; causation could be found.
- Sharp LJ: ‘acts of V were not discrete or independent from D’s conduct, nor were they voluntary – they were products of free volition presupposed by the novus actus rule’
-
Reckless Manslaughter
- D will be liable for this offence where they have caused V's death by act/omission and is at least reckless as to causing death/GBH
-
Euthanasia: Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide
- Active Euthanasia: killing a person (generally not permitted by law, but doctors and parents sometimes get off)
- Passive Euthanasia: lettng die (yes sometimes especially for doctors
- Assisted Suicide: (never)- Suicide Act 1961, s.2(1) ‘A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another… shall be liable for [up to] 14 years.
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]:
- Bland was in a persistent vegetative state and no hope of recovery.
- Hospital + parents applied to lawfully discontinue life support.
- Held: Removal of life support is permitted as it didn’t amount to murder.
- Actus reus of actively causing death wouldn’t be present.
-
Normally, no defence of medical necessity for murder:F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1989]:
- Accepted necessity of sterilising disabled girl for having sexual relationship
- Mother signed consent forms.
- Was it in the best interest of the patient who cannot consent?
- Held: entitled to grant declaration
- A common law principle of necessity is not in doubt
Re A (conjoined twins) [2001]:
- Pushes idea of necessity
- Held: Unique case and defence of necessity allowed
- Robert Walker LJ: No intention to kill - Mary’s death wouldn’t be the purpose or intention of the surgery and her death would be because her body on its own wouldn’t be viable.
- Only applied to this case
- Medical necessity ruled for assisted euthanasia NOT A DEFENCE!