Welcome back to law after
your exams!
Hopefully you are now fully
refreshed and ready to begin
the next step in your legal
education!!
You are expected to take full
control of your learning by ....
• Making your own notes as you go
along. Particularly cases!
• Carrying out wider reading on a
regular basis.
A2 law is interesting and
enjoyable but it is also very
challenging- you need to work
hard and take responsibility
for your own learning.
• Catching up on any lessons you
miss without reminders from
tutors.
So how is A2 different from
AS....?
•Seeking out tutors for any extra
support as required
• Keeping your file up to date, and
organised.
Unit 4: Homicide
Unit 8: Tort Law
Content: Murder,
Manslaughter, Police Powers of
Detention and Criticisms of
the law
Content: Economic Loss,
Negligent Misstatement,
Psychiatric Harm, Occupiers
Liability, Nuisance, Rylands V
Fletcher torts.
Unit 5: Property
Offences
Content: Theft, burglary,
robbery, fraud, criminal
damage and police powers of
search and arrest.
• Naturally A2 law is more challenging than
AS so you need to “up your game!”
• Your tutor will still support you in your
studies but the responsibility very much
shifts to YOU!!
• This is to prepare you for university and
life in the workplace.
• If you want to succeed at A2 law YOU
must take control, be organised, put in
extra time outside of lessons and be
focussed and mature in lessons.
Unit 4
Crime ...
Murder
Task: To carry out the
research on the yellow handout
in groups and prepare a short
powerpoint presentation to
share with the class next
lesson.
In each group there will be a
group manager who will take
responsibility for the work of
the group – it is their
responsibility to make sure
everyone in the group has a
role and they carry it out
correctly.
By the end of the lesson you
should:
-Have a powerpoint
presentation finished lasting
no more than 5 minutes.
-It should be emailed to me
-And a copy should be printed
out for me to see also.
Notes:
-Do not make the presentation
text heavy – just key points.
-You can SPEAK about the
extra info and the class will
take notes.
-Try to make it interesting!
Each group will feedback their
work /presentations today on
murder/manslaughter.
What makes a good
presentation?
You have 2 minutes to make
sure you know who is saying
what.....
As other groups are feeding
back you will have a copy of
their powerpoint presentation
and you need to take extra
notes in the space provided.
Remember to listen carefully
and respect each other’s hard
work!
• Using the mini white
boards make a note of
as many words as you
can that relate to
murder
• Watch the
following film clip
and fill in your
handout on
whether you think
a murder has been
committed.
• You be the judge!!!
Do you know any
answers already...?
•
•
•
•
Definitions of murder ...what is it?
What is the actus reus of murder?
How do you prove a D caused a murder?
What is the mens rea of murder?
• You will also need to be able to APPLY the
law to a problem question.
• Again using the mini whiteboards try to
come up with a definition of the word
murder.
• Ok now let us have a go at unscrambling
the definition you need to learn and know
• Read through the introductory material
on murder ...
• How are murder and manslaughter
different from each other?
• What sentence will always be given for
murder?
• Why is the mandatory life sentence
criticised?
• What did you find our about
the death penalty in your own
research ...? When was it
abolished?
• Do you agree with the death
penalty? Why/Why not?
• Do you think it should be
brought back? Why/Why not?
• No statutory definition
• Numerous Common law definitions.
• Lord Coke’s is one that is often
referred to.
Task
• Read his definition ... What elements of
that definition make up the actus reus?
When might killing
a person be
lawful...?
Do you know any
answers already...?
•
•
•
•
Definitions of murder ...what is it?
What is the actus reus of murder?
How do you prove a D caused a murder?
What is the mens rea of murder?
• You will also need to be able to APPLY the
law to a problem question.
What part of a crime
is this?
What do you think
the AR of murder is?
1. D must have caused the death of a
living victim – directly or indirectly.
2. The victim must be human
3. The law generally requires a positive
act but there are some exceptions to
this if there is a duty to act.
Actus
Reus of
murder –
stage 1
• Can you think of a case where death was
caused indirectly ...?
• One example is the Harlot’s case...
How did the D caused the death...?
Actus
Reus of
murder –
stage 1
How was the death caused in
• R v Adams (1957)?
An injection was given by a doctor to
ease the passing of a number of elderly
relatives .
Devlin J said “ he is entitled to do all that
is proper and necessary to relieve pain
even if the measures he takes may
incidentally shorten life“
Actus
Reus of
murder –
stage 1
How was the death caused in
R v Mackie (1973)?
D threatened his three-year-old
stepson with a severe thrashing for
some minor misbehaviour. The boy tried
to run away but fell downstairs,
dislocated his neck, and died. D was
charged with manslaughter, and his
conviction was upheld by the Court of
Appeal.
Convicted of Manslaughter
Actus
Reus of
murder –
stage 2
• When does life start ...?
• This is up to the court to decide!
• When did the courts say life begins in
A-G Ref (no3 of 1994) ?
An attacker, who intends to injure a
pregnant woman also injured the
baby in the womb. The baby is then
born alive and only later dies from
these injuries . Should the attacker
be guilty of murder?
Do you think the
attacker should be
charged with
murder in this
situation?
Look at the AG ref
(no 3 of 1994 ) ....
Was is the legal
position in this
case ....?
Attorney General’s ref (No 3 of 1994)
This case set out that D could not be guilty of
murder if he injures a foetus which is then born alive
but later dies from the injuries if he only had
intention to injure the mother.
The principle of transferred malice can not apply as
it would be a double transfer ...
1
2
Actus
Reus of
murder –
stage 2
• Why is Rance v Mid Downs Area
Health Authority important?
• What does it tell us about murder
and foetuses?
The intentional killing of a foetus or baby capable of
being born alive but not yet fully born, is the crime of
child destruction under the Infant Life (Preservation)
Act 1929, unless the act was done in good faith to
preserve the life of the mother.
Note: The Abortion Act 1967
provides exceptions to this law.
Actus
Reus of
murder –
stage 3
Think back to law 02 - when
will a defendant have a duty
to act ...?
Actus
Reus of
murder –
stage 3
Actus
Reus of
murder –
stage 3
R v Gibbins and Proctor ...
Why was there a duty on the Ds to act?
Gibbons was Vs father and Proctor (his
mistress) had taken on a duty.
What did the Ds not do?
They had failed to feed the V – age 7 –
and allowed her to starve to death.
What was the outcome of the case?
G and P guilty of murder.
• R v Kouao & Manning 2001
• A couple DD were convicted of the murder of D1’s
great niece Victoria (or Anna) aged 8 who died from
multiple organ failure caused by hypothermia and
malnutrition. Victoria has been subjected to serious
physical abuse over a period of almost a year in their
‘care’, but the immediate cause of her death was
neglect rather then any positive act on DD’s part.
• Airedale HA v Bland [1993]
• A young man was badly injured in the crush at the Hillsborough
football ground, and was taken to hospital. Some eighteen months
later he was still in a "persistent vegetative state" and the doctors
(with the agreement of his family) sought leave of the court to
discontinue artificial feeding so that he might die peacefully of
malnutrition.
• Lord Goff said the law draws a crucial distinction between cases in
which a doctor decides not to provide treatment which might
prolong a patient's life, and those in which he decides actively to
bring the patient's life to an end.
• The former might be lawful if it was no longer in the patient's best
interests (and thus no longer the doctors' duty) to keep him alive, but
the latter never is. It would be lawful for Bland's doctors not to go on
feeding him (an omission), intending him thereby to die, but it would
be murder if they took positive steps to bring about the same result.
Actus
Reus of
murder –
stage 3
What were the omissions in the following cases?
Were the defendants guilty of murder by
omission?
1. What is the definition of murder?
2. Who set out this definition?
3. Name a case that illustrates how murder can be
carried out indirectly.
4. Name a case that sets out when a when a human
begins its life.
5. When can a person be guilty of murder for failing
to act?
6. Name a case that illustrates a murder conviction
for a FAILURE to act.
7. Name a case where there was a failure to act but
NO GUILT.
Old cases!
You can still
use them!!
New cases ..
The but for test was not
satisfied as it could not be
proven that but for D striking
V with a brick he would not
have died.
The but for test was not
satisfied as the body had
already been cremated – lack of
evidence. Instead D was
convicted of attempted murder
Was D more than a
minimal cause of
the death?
In R v Malcherek was
the chain broken by the
doctors switching off
the life support
No! Malcherek was still
machine?
guilty of murder
(stabbing wife)
What other cases
illustrate that
medical treatment
will not usually
break the chain of
causation?
• Read through the facts of R v
McKechnie
• Do you think this was the correct
outcome?
R v Ruby ... A literal example of
the rule!!
In a fight D knocked V down with a single blow
with his fist and then gave a half hearted kick to
his head.
V had a very thin skull and died from the kick to
his head.
D was found guilty of manslaughter! (MR not
present for murder.)
R v Woods ... You can still use
this case!
R v Woods
A young man D, now aged 21, had been left in
charge of his younger brothers and sisters
while their father was away at war, but the
father had recently returned. One day D
struck his younger brother B for being cheeky;
B got up and walked out of the room, but soon
afterwards collapsed and died because of a
very rare and unsuspected thymus condition
making him highly susceptible to any sudden
shock.
D was charged with manslaughter, and the
judge directed the jury that he would be guilty
if D had struck an unlawful blow, even though
it would have caused no serious harm to any
healthy person.
(The jury acquitted D nevertheless.)
R v Blaue
D stabbed V and punctured her lung. V was told
she would need a blood transfusion to save her
life, but refused this as contrary to her religious
beliefs.
She died next day, and D was charged with
murder, subsequently reduced to manslaughter by
reason of diminished responsibility.
His appeal against conviction was dismissed. It
has long been the policy of the law, said Lawton
LJ, that those who use violence on other people
must take their victims as they find them. This
principle clearly applies to the mental as well as
the physical characteristics of the victim, and the
courts will rarely make a judgment as to whether
the victim's response was reasonable.
R v Holland (1841)
D assaulted V and injured one
of his fingers. V was advised
to have the finger amputated
but refused, and
subsequently died of tetanus;
D was held to have caused
the death.