Essay
LAW - UNIT 4 - P1 M1
- Institution
- PEARSON (PEARSON)
Essay of 2 pages for the course Unit 4 - Unlawful Homicide and Police Powers at PEARSON (USE AS YOU WISH.)
[Show more]
1 review
By: 14sharp_i • 4 year ago
Content preview
Muhammed AwaisP1 M1 – Murder
The defendant John may be guilty of the common law offence of murder. Also, the other defendant Vlad may
also be guilty of the common law offence of murder.
The law of murder is set in common law, the legal definition of murder is ‘the unlawful killing of a human being
under the queen’s peace, with malice afterthought. There are 3 actus reus of murder. The first actus reus of
murder is ‘unlawful killing’ this means that the killing must be through an act or an omission. The only reason
where a killing may not be unlawful is in the case when someone would kill as self-defence. The police and
military may kill in the line of duty, but they can be found guilty of murder if they exceed their duty and use
excessive force. For example, in the case of R V Clegg, in this case the defendant was a soldier for Northern
Ireland and he was at a checkpoint, there were 4 other soldiers which were with him. In this case the claimant
was driving a car which had 4 of his mates, at first the car had slowed down before reaching the checkpoint and
then suddenly the car sped up and crossed the border. The car was asked to stop but didn’t stop and then all the
soldiers were shooting at the car. The defendant had fired 3 bullets, the first two were fired when the car was
approaching the defendant and the others were fired after the claimant had crossed the border, the last bullet had
hit a passenger sitting in the passenger seat. The car was stolen, and young joy riders were operating the car. Not
terrorists. The defendant was found guilty of murder. When he appealed to the appeal court the appeal was
rejected as they said that he had used excessive force. This was because he fired the last shot when the joy
riders had crossed the soldier as therefore he was no longer in danger. The second actus reus was that the
person who has died needs to be a human being. This must be a person who is alive, the person cannot be dead.
Some is alive when they are out of the stomach of the mother and they are not dependent on the mother, for this
reason if someone kicks a pregnant woman and the baby dies in the womb a person will not be found guilty of
murder. Also brain stem death is accepted as a signal for the end of life. For example, in the case of R V
Malcheren and Steel, these are two cases where the appeals where heard together. In one case the defendant had
stabbed his wife and in the other case the defendant had sexually assaulted s women and then hit her head with a
stone. In both cases the victims were taken to the hospital and they were placed on life support machines. The
doctors in both cases had turned of the life support machine as the people were not responding in their brain
cells. The defendants had argued that the claimants had broken the chain of causation as they had turned off the
life support machine. The court said that the test of death is when the brain stem is dead. Therefore, turning of
the machine wouldn’t make a difference as the ladies were already dead. The last actus reus is ‘Queen’s Peace’
this is when you kill someone in the time of war, this will not be classed as murder if the person you had killed
was an enemy during war time. Now we are not at war so therefore we are in peace time.
So, in the case of John, the killing of the MP was unlawful as he had shot the MP in the head. Just like in
the case of R V Clegg he had exceeded his duty. Secondly the person who John had shot was a human
being, he was the local MP. Just like the case of R V Malcheren and Steel, when he shot the MP in the
head he would have died. Lastly it wasn’t the time of war, now we are living in peace time and he killed
another citizen not an enemy.
Also, in the case of Dana, Vlad had punched Dana, and this contributed to her death, just like in the case
R V Clegg Vlad had exceeded his duty when he punched Dana. Secondly Dana was a human being just
like in the case of R V Malcheren and Steel. Lastly, we are not in the time of war as we are in peace time,
so Vlad had killed Dana at peace time.
After the actus reus is proven, then they will need to prove that the defendants act or omission causes the death
of the victim. Therefore, they will need to prove the factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation is
the but for test and this is the usual test. For example, in the case of Pagett and White. Then there is legal
causation, in the case of pagett Lord Goff described this as, ‘Defendants actions must have made a significant
contribution to the result.’ And then in the case of Cheshire significant contribution was said to mean more
then negligible. You also need to check for any intervening acts, an intervening act can be the victim’s own
actions, the victim may run away. Or medical treatment, you need to see if the defendants act or omission was
still the cause of death or was it due to a medical error. For example, in the case of smith. Lastly you will also
need to consider the skull rule. This is finding the victim as they are, and this is explained in the case of Blaue.
In this case the victim was a Jehovah witness and the defendant had stabbed her 4 times. As she was a Jehovah
witness she refused a blood transfusion which meant she couldn’t be operated on. Then she had died. The
defendant was found guilty as you need to accept a person as you find them.
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 AWAIS123. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
69569 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now
