The Comprehensive Law Document is an invaluable resource meticulously curated to provide students with an in-depth understanding of the legal landscape of the current year. This comprehensive and up-to-date document serves as a one-stop reference guide, equipping students with the knowledge require...
Murder was defined by Lord Coke as the “unlawful killing of a reasonable being under the King’s peace
with malice aforethought, expressed or implied.”
AR: Killing in self-defence is lawful
Unlawful killing – R v Malcherek- Held the turning off life support when V was brain stem dead was held
as a lawful killing
Re A- lawful killing as it was in the best interest.
Reasonable being-
R v Poulton- A human is one which is “expelled” from the womb
Under the King’s peace- R v Blackman- the killing of a seriously injured person who holds no threat was a
killing under the King’s peace.
Causation-
R v Pagett/ R v Smith
Malice aforethought, expressed or implied
Expressed malice- intention to kill- mohan/ woolin
Woolin- Did D foresee risk of death and Was death virtually certain from his actions.
In Cunningham where D appealed, conviction upheld based on rulings in R v Vickers
Implied malice- intention to cause GBH DPP v Smith/ R v Vickers where the jury were directed that if D
caused GBH this would be sufficed for murder.
Partial defences- Murder to manslaughter- max 3-16 years
Diminished responsibility under s52 coroners and justice act 2009
Abnormality of mental functioning by a recognised medical condition which causes substantial
impairment, affecting D’s ability to form rational judgement, exercise self-control, understand nature of
their conduct. Must also explain D’s conduct (act or omission) in killing
R v Byrne Lord Parker defined an abnormality as “a state of mind so different from that of ordinary
beings than a reasonable man would call it abnormal”
Abnormality must be from a recognised medical condition WHO, R v Hobson- held “battered wife
syndrome “is included
R v Golds- held substantial means “weighty or important”- merely trivial does not count
,R v Dietschmann- D's abnormality was more than minimal cause of injury, though alcoholism is involved,
Jury can set it aside
Explains D’s act or omission in killing
“But for” D’s abnormality would D have carried out the conduct – R v White
Was D’s abnormality a significant contributory factor in D carrying out the conduct- R v Smith
It is on defence to prove on balance of probabilities.
Loss of Control
Under s54/55 coroners and justice act 2009
R v Jewell Loss of control- “loss of ability to act with considerable judgement or normal powers of
reasoning”
R v Ahluwalia held loss of control need not be sudden, Jury can take “cumulative impacts” into account
S55 sets out qualifying triggers
S55(3)- D must have a fear of serious violence from V. This would be a subjective test; fear does not
need to be reasonable but must be genuine.
R v Dawes Held D cannot rely on defence of loss of control if incited the situation or used it as an excuse
to use violence after.
S55(4) “things said/done that explain circumstances of an extremely grave character and cause him to
have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged”
R v Mohamed- own perception is irrelevant
R v Davies- things said or done need not be from victim
AG for Jersey v Holley held sexual infidelity cannot be the basis of claim but can be context for other
factors to present an extremely grave character
S54 (1)( c ) Objective test- “ a person of D’s age and sex, with a normal degree of tolerance and self -
restraint and in the same circumstance of D have reacted same or similarly”
R v Asmelash- Jury should disregard intoxication and apply reasonable man test as if sober
Unlawful act manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
D must commit unlawful act which is objectively dangerous, causing death, D must have MR for unlawful
act
R v Lamb- Act must be unlawful
,R v Franklin- A civil wrong isn’t enough
R v Lowe- Omission doesn’t constitute unlawful act manslaughter
Objectively dangerous
Would a sober and reasonable person realise the risk of some harm- R v Church
R v Larkin- No need to realise serious harm or specific harm suffered
R v Goodfellow- Act can be aimed at property/ arson
R v Dawson- Must be a risk of physical harm, fear is not enough
Causation
Normal rules of causation
R v Roberts- Is victim response to threat reasonable and foreseeable, therefore direct link between
assault and death
Novus actus interveniens, V self- injecting or V’s own actions can break the chain of causation – R v
Kennedy
Mens Rea
DPP v Newbury and Jones - D must have mens rea for unlawful act, it is not necessary to prove that D
foresaw any harm from his or her act
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Requires negligence and results in death
Can be an act or an omission unlike involuntary manslaughter
In R v Adomako Lord Mackay held the existence of a duty of care must be established by D to victim.
Caparo v Dickman can be established if there is an omission but if there is an obvious risk of death a duty
of care is established R v Robison
Lord Atkins neighbour principle “take reasonable care to not injury your neighbour”
R v Edwards- Parents owed a duty of care to their children by allowing them to play on railways
R v Wacker- Not relevant that V is party to an illegal act
Breach of duty- Nettleship v Weston, Bolam v Friern Barnett Hospital (2 professional questions)
, Causation- normal rules apply, did the breach cause death
R v Kennedy-V voluntarily self-administered drug without pressure from D. Broke chain of causation.
R v Broughton- At the time of the breach there must be a serious and obvious risk of death and it must
be reasonably foreseeable that the breach gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death.
Gross negligence- R v Adomako defined gross negligence as where “D’s conduct is so bad in all
circumstances to be judged criminal”
R v Bateman held negligence must be” GROSS” involving a disregard for life and safety to others and
amounts to a crime
Risk of Death- R v Misra and Srivista
Must be a risk to life of individuals who are owed a duty of care, judged objectively, doesn’t matter if D
didn’t foresee risk.
Property Offences: Theft triable either way 7 years
S1 Theft Act 1968
S(2) Dishonest S(3) appropriation of S(4) property S(5)belonging to another S(6) with intention to
permanently deprive
S(3) defines appropriation: R v Morris held that the assumption of only a right of the owner is sufficient
for appropriation
R v Gomez: Appropriation exists where there is consent, even if consent is by deception.
R v Hinks- appropriation exists even where there is a gift
S(4) defines property as “Money, real or personal property, things in action, other intangible property”
R v Welsh- bodily fluids are property
Oxford v Moss- confidential information is not property for the purpose of this act. Compare and
contrast for AO3
R v Akbar- property was deemed an actual item as opposed to information
R v Kohn- wrote cheques to pay off personal debt, held D was stealing a thing in action.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller explo1k. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $20.37. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
