Murder

Murder

Lord Coke defines murder as: “the unlawful killing of a being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought express or implied”.

Actus Reus

The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace.

AG Reference No3 [1994]: The defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend resulting in a miscarriage. He was unable to be charged with murder as the child was a foetus and the malice could not be transferred.

Re A [2001]: Doctors wish the separate conjoined twins without facing criminal prosecution as they knew that one twin would die. The courts justified this and described the twin that must die as parasitic to the other and incapable of independent life.

Senior [1832]: Established that if a child is born that has been injured in the womb and dies after the birth it will be regarded as a person who can be murdered.

Inglis [2010]: The defendant killed her son by injecting him with a fatal overdose of heroin. She claimed that she did this so that he would die quickly and peacefully, to prevent what she regarded as a ‘prolonged and lingering’ death. She relied on provocation as a defence. It failed as she had no evidence to support a loss of control. She appealed, arguing that her murder was a mercy killing and that the victim was so severely disabled that he was no longer a ‘human being’. The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and upheld the murder conviction.

Mens Rea

The expressed or implied malice. The defendant must either have the direct intention to kill, the oblique intention or the defendant’s aim was to cause GBH and the defendant died as a result of this GBH.

Mohan: Held the defendant directly desired to bring around the consequences of his actions.

Saunders [1985]: Established that a broken nose amounted to grievous bodily harm.

Middleton [1999] (Unreported): The victim was attacked by feet and fists. The judge held that if the defendant performed this act then the jury could find the intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Woolin [1999]: Established that the intention to kill, intention to cause grievous bodily harm or to realise a virtual certain result of his actions would satisfy the mens rea.

Cunningham [1982]: Argued whether the prosecution should show an intention to kill rather than an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. This argument was rejected.

Cocker [1989]: The defendant killed his terminally ill wife, he tried to argue that he shouldn’t be prosecuted for murder as her continued illness provoked him to kill her. The courts rejected this argument but only sentenced him to four years rather than the usual life tariff.

Lichniak [2003]: Tried to argue that a life tariff is contrary to the Human Rights Act. It was rejected as the courts found that it did not contravene the Human Rights Act.

Re A [1992]: Established that brain stem death is death but that a vegetative state is not necessarily death.

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]: Established that the removal of artificial feeding does not become a new cause of death.

Malcharek [1981]: Established that the turning off of a life support machine was not a new cause of death so long as it is in the patient’s best interest.