Thesis
Murder-Fatal Offences Against The Person
This document is about murder which is the part of fatal offences against the person. This document includes actus reus and mens rea of murder. Good Luck!
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Murder:Lord Coke-‘Unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’sPeace with malice aforethought, express or implied.’ It is a common law offence, no statue
defines it. Most serious fatal offence which has mandatory life sentence (maximum).
Actus reus:1.the defendant killed 2.a reasonable creature in being 3.under the King’s peace
and 4.the killing was unlawful.
Killed:actus reus of killing can be an act or omission (failure to act). It must cause the death
of the victim. Omission can make a person liable for the offence of murder as in R v Gibbins
and Proctor. The chain of causation must not be broken by intervening acts (poor medical
treatment), if it is broken , then it won’t be an offence of murder,
R v Smith, R v Jordan.
Reasonable creature in being:this means a human being. Person must be killed to be an
offence of murder. It is not certain whether a brain dead person can be considered as a
reasonable creature in being or not. Attorney General’s Reference (N3 of 1994) (1997):if a
foetus is injured and a child is born alive, but dies afterwards because of these injuries, it can
be the actus reus of murder or manslaughter. If a person is brain-dead, doctors are allowed
to switch off life support machines. The Law Reform (Year and Day Rule) Act 1996 doesn’t
set a time limit when the death may occur after the unlawful act, however, where it is more
than 3 years from unlawful act, prosecution needs Attorney General’s consent to prosecute.
King’s peace:killing a person during war is not a murder, however, killing a prisoner of war
would be sufficient for actus reus of murder.
Unlawful:killing must be unlawful. It won’t be unlawful if: 1.self-defence 2.in defence of
another 3.prevention of crime where defendant used reasonable force in circumstances.
Mens rea:malice aforethought, express or implied. Express malice aforethought is the
intention to kill. Implied malice aforethought is intention to cause grievous bodily harm
(GBH): The person will be guilty of murder even though they didn’t intend to kill, R v Vickers,
R v Cunningham (intention for GBH was sufficient for the mens rea of murder). DPP v Smith:
GBH is ‘really serious bodily harm’.
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 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 ladigamkrelidze. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £3.89. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
79650 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now