GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

MURDER

Chantal Briancon Criminal Law Undergraduate English 46 cards

Cards in this deck (46)

  1. 1What is murder?Edward Coke defined murder as 'the unlawful killing of another reasonable person in being under the King's peace with malice aforethought expressed or implied'.
  2. 2The killing must be unlawful.The first element of murder is that the killing of the victim must be clearly defined as being unlawful. If it is deemed by the courts as being lawful, the defendant will not be liable for murder.
  3. 3R V CLEGGWhere the defendant kills as an act of self-defence, the killing will be lawful.
  4. 4R A (CONJOINED TWINS)Where the killing is done out of necessity, it will be deemed as being lawful. In this case, the operation of separating twins that would lead to the death of one of the children was deemed as a necessity and therefore, did not amount to murder.
  5. 5AIRENDALE HOSPITAL TRUSTEE V BLANDWhere a doctor lawfully removes medical treatment or life support, they will not be liable for murder.
  6. 6The actions of the defendant must cause the victims death.There must be a direct link between the actions of the defendant and the death of the victim.
  7. 7What is factual causation?Factual causation is the starting point for establishing the liability of the defendant. It looks at whether the defendants actions factually lead to the victim's death.
  8. 8R V WHITEThis test established the 'but for' test - but for the actions of the defendant, would the victim have died?
  9. 9R V PAGETTIt was clear that the defendant's actions of holding the victim and using her a human shield against police fire clearly caused her death. Therefore, factual causation was satisfied.
  10. 10What is legal causation?Legal causation is where it must be established that the defendant's actions were more than a minimal cause of the victim's death.
  11. 11R V CATOThe actions of the defendant must be more than a minimal cause of the victim's death.
  12. 12R V SMITHIt must be established that the defendant's actions were the operating and substantive cause of the victim's death.
  13. 13What are intervening acts?Intervening acts are separate acts that may occur that have the effect of breaking the chain of causation. Where the chain of causation is broken, this may lead to the defendant not being liable for the murder of the victim.
  14. 14Intervening acts by third partiesIntervening acts may be performed by third parties. This often relates to where hospitals or medical professionals are involved.
  15. 15R V CHESHIREDespite the 'palpably wrong' medical treatment that the victim experienced, it was clear that the stab wounds caused by the defendant were clearly the cause of the victim's death. NO INTERVENING ACT
  16. 16R V SMITHNo intervening act was seen as it was clear that the defendant's actions still lead to the victim's death.
  17. 17R V JORDANThe victim suffered palpably wrong medical treatment from the hospital. This created an intervening act that broke the chain of causation. The defendant was no longer liable for the victim's death.
  18. 18Intervening acts by the victimSometimes the victims own actions may lead to an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.
  19. 19R V WILLIAMSAn intervening act will only break the chain of causation where it is so unreasonable that the defendant could not foresee the victim's actions.
  20. 20R V ROBERTSThere was no intervening acts by the victim.
  21. 21What is the thin skull rule?The thin skull rule means that a defendant will always be liable for the death of a victim even if the consequences of his actions were not foreseeable due to a certain condition that the victim suffered from.
  22. 22R V BLAUEEstablished the thin skull rule.
  23. 23R V HOLLANDExample of the thin skull rule
  24. 24R V HOLLANDExample of the thin skull rule
  25. 25What is a reasonable creature in being?A reasonable creature in being is a key area that has been discussed by the courts in regards to both birth and death,
  26. 26R V REEVESEstablished that a person is a person in being when they have been brought alive into the world.
  27. 27R V POULTONA person is a person in being even when the umbilical cord has not been cut.
  28. 28ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE NO.3A foetus in the womb is not a reasonable person in being.
  29. 29AIRENDALE TRUSTEE HOSPITAL V BLANDWhere doctors commit an omission, they will not be liable for the murder of the victim.
  30. 30R V MALCHEREK AND STEELThe end of activity in the brain stem signals the end of life. Those on life support are still deemed as being reasonable people in being.
  31. 31The killing must take under the King or Queen's peace for it to be unlawfulWhere the killing takes place at a time of war, the killing will be regarded as lawful
  32. 32R V PAGEThe killing took place under the King's peace, therefore, it was unlawful.
  33. 33Malice aforethoughtThis definition of the mens rea of murder is often criticised for being outdated. For instance, it is clear that malice is not needed for murder - some murder cases being mercy killings. It is also clear that there is no need for the murder to be premeditated.
  34. 34DPP V SMITHDefined the mens rea for murder
  35. 35Expressed maliceExpressed malice is where the defendant has the intention to kill the victim
  36. 36Implied maliceImplied malice is where the defendant intends to commit GBH but this leads to the death of the victim.
  37. 37R V VICKERSEstablished implied malice
  38. 38R V MOLONEYNothing less than the intention to kill or cause GBH should constitute the necessary mens rea for murder
  39. 39R V CUNNINGHAMRecklessness cannot be an element of the mens rea for murder
  40. 40Expressed malice as direct intentionDirect intention in expressed malice is where the defendant intends A and A occurs
  41. 41Expressed malice and oblique intentionOblique intention is where the defendant intends A but B occurs - the definition of oblique intention has been discussed and developed largely by the courts
  42. 42R V MOLONEYOblique intention was defined as a foresaw of consequences
  43. 43R V HANCOCK AND SHANKLANDOblique intention was defined as being where the defendant understands that there is a high probability that death will result from his actions
  44. 44R V NEDRICKEstablished the test for oblique intention as being where the defendant is virtually certain that his actions will result in the victim's death and that the defendant appreciates this
  45. 45R V WOOLINConfirmed the test of Nedrick
  46. 46R V MATTHEWS AND ALLEYNEEstablished that foresight of consequences is merely a rule of evidence and therefore, the jury are entitled to establish this if they wish.

Information

Description
Undergraduate Criminal Law Flashcards on MURDER, created by Chantal Briancon on 10/05/2016.
Views
4
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?