Criminal Law: Unit 3
HOMICIDE
Outcomes
The question of legal causation is left to the jury to decide as a matter of common sense.
Intervening events by a 3rda party
1. Demonstrate comprehensive understanding of the legal requirements for murder and voluntary manslaughter
and make sound judgements on how these offences are applied in practice
Ds have often tried to argue that the chain of causation has been broken (i.e. the link between their act and the result has been broken by
2. Appreciate the circumstances in which the partial defences of diminished responsibility and loss of self-control
an intervening act or event).
may apply
3. Analyse
This argument factual
will not scenarios
succeed if: to determine potential criminal liability for homicide by using relevant legal principles; and
accurately apply legal knowledge with supporting reasons in a logical and persuasive way
(a)
4. despite theevaluate
Critically fact that the
there was anlaw
current intervening
relatingevent,
to thethe injuries
partial inflictedto
defences by murder
the D were
by still an operating
reference and substantial
to current academiccause of
death (R v Malcherek and Steel); or
research
R v Malcherek and Steel - the discontinuance of treatment did not break the chain of causation between the initial injury and the death.
Homicide is a generic term for any unlawful killing.
(b) if there was an intervening act or event, this was foreseen or foreseeable.
Murder > Voluntary manslaughter > Constructive and gross negligence manslaughter
R v Watson - Where the death of the victim is due to something other than physically inflicted injuries (e.g. fright, or heart attack as in R v
AR of homicide
Watson) the test is the same as in the case of physically inflicted injuries: if it was foreseen or foreseeable that such an outcome could
occur, the D can be said to have been the legal cause of death. Presumably, this is easier to establish in the case of older victims, or those
The victim must be a human being
known to be vulnerable.
To prove that the D has caused the death of a human being, it is important to establish that the victim is a human being.
R v Wallace - Voluntary euthanasia does not necessarily break the chain of causation. The question is whether it was reasonably
foreseeable
The point forthat the victim would
consideration here iscommit
at whichsuicide
point aasfoetus
a result of his injuries.
becomes a human being and is thus afforded the protection of the law of
homicide. It is not homicide to kill a child in the womb.
Intervening events by natural events
Abortion is not murder. The unborn child is protected by section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and where the child is
If a natural event intervened to be the immediate cause of a victim’s death (e.g. gas explosion, earthquake, struck by lightning), the same
capable of being born alive, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.
‘reasonable foreseeability’ test would be used.
To be given the protection of the law of homicide, the child must be wholly expelled from the mother’s body and be alive (R v Poulton; Re
Causation in cases of medical negligence
A (Children)(conjoined twins: surgical separation)), and must have an existence independent of the mother. An existence independent of
the mother- means
R v Jordan the had
The victim childbeen
should have
given independent
poor circulation,
medical treatment. Atand
the that
timeitofshould havethe
his death, drawn breath
initial after
wound birth. by the D had largely
inflicted
healed. The D’s conviction was quashed, because it was held that the medical treatment received by the victim was ‘palpably wrong’.
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) - Murder could not be committed where unlawful injury had been deliberately inflicted to a
However, Lord Parker CJ in Smith commented that Jordan was ‘a very particular case depending upon its exact facts’.
mother carrying a child where the child was subsequently born alive and then died as a result of the injuries inflicted while in the uterus.
Any mens-rea
R v Smith thewas
There D had in relation
evidence thattothe
themedical
mothertreatment
could notthe
be transferred to the
victim received hadunborn foetus. However,
been ‘thoroughly the that
bad’ and D could
the be liable formight
treatment
constructive manslaughter, and therefore acknowledged that the baby was capable of being a victim of homicide - the precise
have affected the victim’s chances of recovery. “...only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound merely chargepart of
would depend upon the D’s MR.
the history can it be said that the death does not flow from the wound...” (Lord Parker CJ in R v Smith). Following Smith, the D will find it
difficult to argue a break in the chain of causation as long as the injury he initially inflicted is still operating at the time of death. It need not
AR of homicide
be the sole or main cause of death, thus even cases of quite serious medical negligence may not be enough to enable the D who inflicted
the initial
When doesinjury to escape
someone die?liability.
R v Chesire
The - Itaccepted
generally is clear from
legalthe words of
definition ofBeldam
death asLJstated
that the
by Court of Appeal
Lord Lane CJ in Rwould be extremely
v Malcherek reluctant
and Steel is ‘theto allow a D death
irreversible to escape liability
of the brain
because of poor medical treatment received by the victim except
stem, which controls the basic functions of the body such as breathing’. in the most exceptional cases. Only where the negligent medical
treatment was “so independent of [the D’s] acts, and in itself so potent in causing death, that [the jury] regard the contribution made by
AR ofD’s]
[the homicide
acts as insignificant” will the D be said not to have caused the victim’s death.
Causation
R v McKechnie - Because of the head injuries caused by the D, it was medically decided that it would not be possible to operate on his pre-
existing condition (i.e. a duodenal ulcer). This decision is consistent with the principle that a D must “take his victim as he finds him”.
The D’s act must be a substantial/significant cause of the victim’s death.
Ultimately, the question of causation will be a question of fact for the jury to determine (R v Clarke and Morabir).
Factual causation
AR
Theof homicide
question to be asked is: ‘but for the D’s conduct, would the victim’s death have occurred in the way that it did?’ (R v White)
Taking your victim
For causation to beas you find him
established, the(The eggshell
D’s act skull principle)
(or omission) must accelerate the death. The acceleration of death must be ‘significant’ (i.e.
‘more than negligible) (R v Cheshire). This is
Defendants take their victims as they find them. a question of fact for the jury to decide, but it is clear that acceleration of death even by a day
or two can be sufficient to establish factual causation.
If the victim...
Legal causation
- Happens to be suffering from a serious heart condition (R v Watson); or
The D’s act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the victim’s death; it is enough that his act (or omission) contributed
- Refuses
significantly to thatblood
resulttransfusion because of religious beliefs (R v Blaue)
(R v Pagett).
... the D has to answer for the consequences that follow, even if those consequences are completely unforeseeable.
1
, MURDER
Murder is a common law offence.
Coke’s classic definition of murder is “the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace with malice
aforethought.
AR of Murder
The actus reus of murder is that the defendant must cause the death of a human being
MR of Murder
The MR for murder is an intention to kill or an intention to cause GBH (R v Moloney)
NOTE: Recklessness will not suffice.
NOTE: An intention to cause GBH is sufficient MR for murder.
It is an entirely subjective test (i.e. did the individual D himself intend to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm?)
Mercy killings represent no defence in English law (R v Inglis)
Direct intention (MR) Indirect/oblique intention (MR)
Direct intention means that the defendant desired something to Indirect or oblique intention occurs where the D’s primary aim or
happen, or it was his aim, purpose or goal (R v Moloney) desire was not the forbidden consequence but where he
foresaw the consequence as virtually certain.
STATE: It was X’s direct intention that Y would die, because X desires
that consequence. The jury may find intention but they do not have to (Nedrick;
Woolin). It would therefore be wrong to say that if the D foresaw
If the AR and MR of murder are established, the defendant the consequences as virtually certain he did intend it: it is a
will be convicted and will receive a mandatory LIFE question for the jury to decide.
SENTENCE. STATE: X’s direct intention appears to be to cause criminal
damage and prevent animal testing. However, if X foresaw Y’s
death or serious injury as a virtually certain consequence of her
actions, the jury may find that she intended it.
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
The law has recognised certain situations where a person will be liable for an offence of voluntary manslaughter for one of three special
reasons (i.e. these are partial defences):
1. Diminished responsibility
2. Loss of control; and
3. Suicide pact
NOTE: These three special reasons are only defences to murder.
The practical effect of a conviction for voluntary manslaughter is that it gives the judge a discretion in sentencing, and the judge can
properly take account of all the relevant circumstances.
Partial defence to murder: Diminished responsibility (s 52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009; s 2(1) Homicide Act 1957)
The D has to prove ‘on a balance of probabilities’ (i.e. it is more likely than not) that he was suffering from diminished responsibility.
Abnormality of mental functioning
The jury will decide whether the D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning, having heard expert medical evidence.
In R v Byrne, ‘abnormality of mind’ meant ‘a state of mind so different from ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it
abnormal’.
Arose from a recognised medical condition
If a medical expert gave evidence that, at the time of the killing, a D was suffering from a condition included in one of the accepted
classification systems that encompass recognised medical conditions (e.g. the WHO’s ICD10, or the American Psychiatric Association’s…
2
