Murder Structure
Definition: Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the kings or
queens peace with malice aforethought express or implied
Actus Reus:
Has The defendant killed?
- The victim must be killed by an act or omission. Cannot be guilty unless the act causes the
death
- Factual causation, ‘But for’ (Pagett)
- Legal causation, De minimus rule, ‘more than a slight or trifling link’ (Kimsey)
- Thin Skull rule, (Blaue)
- Novus Actus Interveniens, Medical negligence- ‘so independent of the accused acts and such
a powerful cause of death in itself that the contribution made by D’s conduct was
insignificant’ (Cheshire)(Jordan), Victims own acts –‘reasonably foreseeable’(Roberts)
‘daft/unreasonable’(Williams and Davies)
Was the victim a reasonable creature in being?
- Human Being
- If a foetus dies before birth it isn’t a RCIB but harm suffered after baby is born can rise to
liability(AG Ref(No3 of 1994) 1997)
Was it under the Kings peace?
- Enemy in a war is not murder but killing a prisoner of war is
Was the killing unlawful?
- Self defence, defence of another or in the prevention of a crime (reasonable force)
Mens Rea:
Malice aforethought express- Intention to kill
Malice aforethought implied- Intention to cause GBH (Cunningham 1981)
Direct intention – Aim, purpose or desire/(Mohan) decision by D to bring about the consequences
Indirect intention- (Woolin) 1. Was death or serious injury a virtual certainty? 2.Did D realise
death/serious injury was a virtual certainty
Diminished Responsibility Structure
Define murder first and then apply briefly. Factual, legal and novus actus intervienes
___ might have the partial defence of DR (s.2 Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s52 Coroners and
Justice Act 2009) Burden of proof is on ____ to show that it was more than likely than not that they
were suffering from DR when they killed. (balance of probabilities)
____ must be suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning. Abnormality of mind was
previously explained as a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary man that any
reasonable man would term it abnormal (Byrne). It is assumed abnormality of mental functioning
will be defined in a similar way. Evidence of abnormality of mental functioning…
s.52(1)a must of arose from a recognised medical condition:
Mental deficiency (Speake)
Pre-menstrual Tension (Smith)
Battered Woman syndrome (Ahluwalia)
Depressed grief reaction (Dietschmann)
Aspergers (Jama)
Chronic depression (Seers)
If relevant also apply rules on intoxication
Dowd- Being drunk with no other abnormality of mental functioning results in a failed defence as
being drunk is not a recognised medical condition.
, Dietschmann- Disregard the intoxication and just consider the AMF. Did the AMF itself substantially
impair D’s mental responsibility and provide an explanation for their acts
Wood- Alchohol dependency consider Was D’s craving irresistible ? How serious was the illness?
Was the consumption voluntary ?
Explain symptoms then explain the disorder… and then explain rules on intoxication if relevant
s.52(1)b must substantially impair ability to:
s.52(1A)a Understand the nature of their conduct,
s.52(1A)b Form rational judgements or
s.52(1A)c Exercise self-control
In Golds the court said the impairment is substantial if it ‘significantly and appreciably impairs ability’
Explain which impairment it is and then say if it is substantial
s.52(1)c the abnormality must provide an explanation for the defendants acts/omissions in the
killing. Must be a casual connection between the defendants abnormality of mental functioning and
the killing. The abnormality need not be the only factor in causing the killing but a significant
contributory factor s.2(1B) HA 1957.
Explain if it provides an explanation using the criteria, provocation suggest not an explanation
___ was or was not suffering from DR when they killed so will be convicted of a lesser sentence of
manslaughter or will be convicted of murder.
Loss of Control structure
Define murder the apply first briefly. Factual, legal and novus actus intervienes.
___ might have the partial defence of loss of control created by s54 & 55 Coroners and Justice Act
2009 which if successful ____ will be convicted of voluntary manslaughter and the judge will have
discretion when sentencing. It is a special defence as it is only available for murder. Once ___
provides evidence to support the defence the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt
there was no loss of control (LOC) which is then a matter for the jury (R v Barnsdale-Quean)
S.54(1) where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, the defendant is not to be
convicted of murder if:
S.54(1)a D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from the defendants
loss of self control. In Jewell LOC is loss of the ability to act in accordance with considered judgement
or a loss in the normal powers of reasoning. ____ did what to suggest LOC. Dawes shows that this
can be the cumulative impact of earlier events, explain if there is multiple things that has happened
or the same thing over and over again. S.54(2) states that this need not be sudden, explain if there is
a time gap that LOC is still applicable. However S.54(4) if there is evidence that shows ___ killed out
of a considered act of revenge there will be no defence. If there is a ‘time lapse’ between the trigger
for the killing and the killing it does not necessarily mean there was no LOC and it was revenge.
Explain that a time gap is not necessarily revenge, it is in these circumstances or there is other
evidence to show that it was revenge. But, the greater the level of deliberation the less likely it will
be that the killing followed a true loss of control (Clinton). Explain if the defendant has
planned/decided to kill or any other form of harm.
S.54(1)b the loss of control had a qualifying trigger. S.55(3) the defendants feared serious violence
from the victims against himself or another identified person. D killed V who had attacked their
brother (Ward). D killed V after V attacked him with a baseball bat (Lodge). Explain if there is fear
and why, use the cases if relevant. AND/OR S.55(4) a thing or things said or done or both which
constitutes circumstances of an extremely grave character and caused the defendant to have a
justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. S.55(6) Sexual infidelity can never be an anger trigger
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 jackedwards1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £2.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
