Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Homicide - Murder
Mens Rea
© The Law Bank
1
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Starter #1
• Sophie is unable to tolerate her unhappy
marriage to Matthew any longer. After Harry has
gone to bed she takes a knife and stabs him.
Unknown to her, the equally desperate Harry
was already dead having taken a large overdose
of drugs half an hour earlier.
© The Law Bank
2
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Answer 1
• Sophie – Not guilty of murder
(fails ‘but for’ test) R v White
(1910)
© The Law Bank
3
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Starter #2
• Peter is attacked by Andrew and suffers serious
though not fatal injuries. On its way to take Peter
to hospital the ambulance is involved in a high
speed car crash in which the driver of the
ambulance and Peter is killed.
© The Law Bank
4
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Answer 2
• Andrew is guilty of murder – legal
causation as this is still a substantial
cause of Mahmoud’s death R v Smith
(no novus interveniens) (but not
responsible for the death of the
ambulance driver (no operating cause))
© The Law Bank
5
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Starter #3
• Rosie is on a fairground ride, during the course
of which the person next to her attempts to
indecently assault her. Desperate to get away
she jumps out and being hit by the following car
is fatally injured.
© The Law Bank
6
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Answer 3
• Rosie – D guilty chain not broken as
this was an acceptable level of
escape R v Roberts
© The Law Bank
7
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Objectives
• Define the mens rea of murder
• Explain the chronology of the law on
oblique intent
• Apply the law on murder to a
number of given scenarios.
© The Law Bank
8
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Unlawful Killing
• Defined by Coke as the Mens Rea of murder
• Case law has extended this definition
• No ‘malice’ required (take mercy killings) (Gray (1965)
where parent gives a fatal dose of drugs to terminally ill
child)
• ‘Aforethought’ does not mean any prior thought is required
as long as the thought is not after the act
• Mens Rea is now an ‘intention to kill or cause GBH’
• This is the case even when D does not intend to kill but
only to cause really serious harm
• See R v Vickers [1957] confirmed in Cunningham [1982]
© The Law Bank
9
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Vickers, R v (1957) CA
Murder - intention – constructive malice
During D’s burglary of V’s (an old lady) shop, V discovered D whereupon D struck V with
several blows by punching and kicking her in the head. V eventually died from shock due to
general injuries.
Held – Lord Goddard CJ ‘because he has killed a person with the necessary malice
aforethought being implied from the fact that he intended to do grievous bodily harm ... in
considering the construction of s 1(1) [Homicide Act 1957], it is impossible to say that the
doing of grievous bodily harm is the other offence which is referred to in the first line and a
half of the subsection [i.e. which abolishes constructive malice]. It must be shown that
independently of the fact that the accused is committing another offence, that the act which
caused the death was done with malice aforethought as implied by law’. In other words the
court held that an intention to inflict GBH resulting in the death of the victim was enough to
imply the necessary intention or murder.
D guilty of murder
© The Law Bank
10
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Foresight of consequence – Oblique Intent
• The key problem in this area is demonstrated by this question:
• How far can intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm be
inferred from the defendant’s foreseeing the consequences of
his actions?
• Take the terrorist vs the insurance fraudster
• The key cases in this area of law are Hyam [1975], Moloney
[1985]. Hancock and Shankland [1986] Nedrick [1986] Woollin
[1999]
• Very complex and contradictory – See lesson on Mens Rea
© The Law Bank
11
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Recklessness
Virtually
certain
Probability
Probability
Moloney
Woollin
Natural
Foresight
Widens
Narrows
Risk
Consequences
© The Law Bank
12
Homicide
© The Law Bank
Murder – Mens Rea
13
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Foresight of consequence
• Further considered in Mathew and Alleyne
[2003]. Although this case has some technical
difficulties it further supports the decisions in
Nedrick and Woollin.
© The Law Bank
14
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
Murder - intention – foresight of consequence
The D’s threw V from a bridge into a river knowing he could not swim. They left the scene
before he could reach safety and V drowned. The D’s argued on appeal that the direction
given at their trial suggested that foresight of consequences was the same as intention.
Held – The Court of Appeal regarded foresight of consequence being the same as intention to
be more as a rule of evidence. A jury in such a case is entitled to find the existence of
intention but does not necessarily have to. Despite what the Court of Appeal may have
considered to be a technical misdirection it decided that it would not have made any
difference to the jury’s decision.
D’s convictions were upheld - guilty of murder
© The Law Bank
15
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Conclusion
• The best way of expressing the present position is
as follows:
• A person commits murder when he kills with the
necessary intent.
• Intention for murder is nothing less than the
intention to kill or cause some serious bodily harm.
The defendant’s foresight of the consequences of
his actions is no more than evidence from which the
jury may infer intent.
© The Law Bank
16
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Activity
•
Using only the material you have read so far in this chapter, do you think that there is
liability for murder present in the following cases? Give reasons for your opinions.
•
Peter is in severe financial trouble. He places some bogus cargo in a freight plane, primed
with a bomb and timed to explode in mid-air. In this way he hopes to claim insurance on the
phoney goods. The plane is destroyed at 30,000 feet and all the crew are killed as a result.
•
Quin interferes with the power steering of his girlfriend Rosie’s car with the intention of
stopping her from meeting a secret lover. On leaving her drive, Rosie turns into the road
but cannot avoid an approaching vehicle. The oncoming car crashes into her and she is
killed immediately.
•
Tracey a member of an extreme terrorist group enters a pub carrying a holdall containing a
bomb. She shouts a warning and immediately runs out. Very shortly afterwards the bomb
explodes killing three people who were unable to get out in time.
© The Law Bank
17
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Answers
• Peter – Classic direction as originating in Hyam but confirmed
ultimately in Woollin as this is a virtual certainty that the D
would have a foresight of the consequences of his actions
• Quin – Not so clear this time. Would the steering constitute a
virtual certainty as per Woollin? He does not have a direct
intention and this would be a clear case of inference on behalf
of the jury.
• Tracey – Direct intention to kill or cause really serious harm
(Vickers) Mohan. The length of time on the warning would
intimate a direct intent if the fuse was longer then would have
to refer to Woollin again
© The Law Bank
18
Homicide
Murder – Mens Rea
Objectives
• Define the mens rea of murder
• Explain the chronology of the law on
oblique intent
• Apply the law on murder to a
number of given scenarios.
© The Law Bank
19