Murder
Criminal Law A2
Mrs Howe
What is murder?
The Actus Reus for Murder is
 An unlawful act which causes the
death of a human being in the
Queens peace and within a country
of the realm.
Unlawful Act
Unlawful Act- an action which
causes the death of another
Can be one of many things including: Scaring someone to death
 Someone who is killed trying to
escape an attacker

Death

Death- due to advances in medical
science people can be kept alive
along time. Courts consider death
to be brain stem death. Malcherak
1981
What is a Human Being
For purposes of legal proceedings the
following are not human beings: Foetus is not a human being. R v
Copeland 1999
 A person in a vegetative coma kept alive
by life support machine
 A person who is in hospital in a brain
dead state, kept alive by machines
Brain stem death is taken as the key
indicator. Once this occurs no chance of
recovery
Queens Peace


Queens peace- if a soldier kills
someone in the line of duty and war
has been declared with that
country, not murder. R V Clegg
1995
Do you think this is right?
Activity
Read pg 74
Do you think Sgt Clegg should have
been convicted of murder,
manslaughter or neither
Give reasons for your answer
10 mins

Country of the Realm

Country of the Realm- If a British
person commits murder they can be
brought back to UK to be tried for
murder
Mens Rea of MurderThe intention to kill another human
being.
Two possible elements presence of
either is enough to prove murder
1. Intention to kill (express malice
aforethought)
2. Intention to cause grievous bodily
harm (implied malice
aforethought)
Implied malice for a successful
murder conviction prosecution only
have to prove GBH was intended
and death resulted. DO not have to
prove intention to murder
Express malice if intention to kill can
be proved then this is known as
expressed malice
Intention
Two types
Direct Intention- D clearly desired the outcome and
was happy when it was accomplished. Was D’s
aim
Oblique Intention- D kills someone else rather
than/as well as the person he intended to kill
This causes a problem for the court as D may not
have necessary Mens Rea for murder.
R V Nedrick 1986
R V Woolin 1998
Nedrick 1986
Defendant poured petrol through the
letterbox of a house to frighten the
women living there. The result was the
death of a child.
2 questions arose with regard to intent
 1. was the result a virtual certainty of the
action?
 2.Did the D realise that the result would
be a virtual certainty of his action
Unless jury was happy that the answer to
both questions was yes they should not
assume the D intention
Woollin 1998
A D threw his three month old baby
at his pram. The baby missed the
pram and crashed into the wall,
dying of his injuries. The courts
were not happy with the 2
questions used in Nedrick case but
still wanted the jury to find
intention but only if they thought
the result was a virtual certainty
from the actions of the D and that
they knew this to be the case.
Evidence of Intention




Can be seen in Foresight of
consequences.
Does the D realise that their actions will
cause a particular event even if they do
not want that to happen.
R V Stephenson 1979
In the absence of Mens Rea the D may
still be charged with involuntary
manslaughter. Cannot be charged with
manslaughter as would need some
element of mens rea to be present.
Activity
What is the difference between
“Virtual Certainty” and “Substantial
Risk”?
 Why did Woolin refer the judges
direction of “virtual Certainty”?
10mins

Sentencing -Mandatory Sentences
Only sentence available for Murder is Life imprisonment.
Life means for the life of the D. However some of that
sentence can be carried out on licence.
Judge has some discretion/flexibility on the maximum tariffs.
Sentence will be higher if:
 It is a professional killing
 Is racially motivated
 Is politically motivated
 Involve vulnerable people (old people, children etc)
Minimum sentence to be served will be lower if: It’s a mercy killing
 A borderline manslaughter case
 Over reaction due to self defence
 There was a mental disorder (falls short of diminished
responsibility)
Practice statement also says that it is highly unlikely that D
will be released when the minimum term is served
Chain Of Causation
Often D tries to rely on the fact there has been
medical intervention which caused the death of
V or broke the Chain of causation.
Courts wary to accept this. Only the most
unusual medical treatment would break the
chain.
 R V Smith 1959
 R V Cheshire 1991
 R V McKechnie 1991
Courts can choose which test to apply in each
case.
D can still be guilty of murder where the V refuses
or fails to get medical help. Blaue 1975 Courts
will apply But for test
Defences to Murder
Provocation- only a defence for murder
Diminished responsibility
Defendant has abnormality of mind
Inherent cause
Abnormality of mind caused by disease
Abnormality of mind caused by injury
Retarded development of the mind
Suicide Pact
Provocation
“A sudden temporary loss of self control, rendering the
accused so subject to passion as to make him or her
for the moment not the master of his mind” R V Duffy
1949
If proven provocation will reduce charge to manslaughter.
Problem where D does not fly into a rage, Favours men
Where there is premeditation/an act which shows
consideration of murder there can not be provocation
The longer there is a delay between abuse and action
more unlikely provocation would succeed as a defence
R V Ahluwalia 1992R V Ibrams and Gregory 1981- planning shows revenge
Duffy has been used successfully in all these cases issue
for court to decide.
Jury to decide if provocation, S3 of homicide Act 1957
Examples of Provocation






Crying babies
References to lack of sexual ability
Accusations of homosexuality
Adultery
Physical assaults
Long-term mental abuse
Question

Why is it important to the D not to
be charged with murder?
R V Sara Thornton 1992

D was convicted for murder in 1992. Her
husband Malcolm had physically and
mentally abused her for many years and
one night she sharpened a knife from the
kitchen and the stabbed him to death
after he had once more threatened her.
She was found guilty of murder because
of the absence of sudden loss of control.
The premeditated sharpening of the knife
was seen as a significant event
R V Ahluwalia 1992


D had been the long term victim of an
abusive husband and one night she set
her husbands bed alight after covering it
with petrol. The man died 6 days later. D
was convicted of murder despite arguing
that Duffy was an inappropriate test to be
used in her case.
In other words Duffy test of rage not
applicable as she is female but the abuse
she had suffered cld still be considered as
provocation. The longer the delay
between????
R V Ibrams and Gregory 1981

a couple had been imtimadated by the
womans ex boyfriend, John Monk an
dthey hatched a plan, along with a friend
to deal with him. The plan involved him
being persuaded to go to bed with the
woman and then to be attacked by the
D’s. Monk died during the attack. Ct felt
that the planning and time difference
between the killing and the last
threatening actions by Monk invalidated
their defence of provocation
Provocation
There is a subjective and objective element to
defence of provocation
Subjective – what happened to the
defendant.
Objective- what would reasonable man have
done.
Must be certain that provocation would have
made reasonable man act in the same way.
Reasonable can share some are all
characteristics of the D
DPP V Camplin 1978
DPP V Camplin 1978
15 year old boy who had been sexually
abused by an older man.
The older man laughed at D who then hit
him over the head with a heavy cooking
pan. The man was killed.
In this case the House of Lords defined
reasonable man as one who shared some
of the characteristics of the D, that is
gender, age and sexuality.
Diminished responsibility
S2 homicide act 1957
If a person kills while suffering such an abnormality
of mind as substantially impaired his mental
responsibility for the acts or omissions.
Three Legal Elements: The D has abnormality of mind
 The abnormality is related to specific causes
 The abnormality impairs mental responsibility
Three Characteristics
 Can only be used as defence against murder
 Only reduces charge to manslaughter
 Premeditation does not rule out diminished
responsibility
Diminished Responsibility




If proven judge has discretion with
the sentencing. Nothing to life or
committal to hospital under Mental
Health Act 1983
Jury decide if abnormality of mind
Both sides present medical evidence
Sometimes jury have sympathy
with D- not Peter Sutcliffe
Activity


Was the jury right to refuse
Sutcliffe's plea of diminished
responsibility?
Give reasons for you answer
5 mins
Homework


Read the handout
Read Pg’s 67-75