#19109 - 3 Murder & Voluntary Manslaughter - Criminal Law

Criminal 3: Homicide & Partial Defences to murder revision notes

Types of Homicide

• Murder

• Manslaughter

• Voluntary manslaughter

1. Diminished responsibility

2. Loss of control

• Involuntary manslaughter

1. Unlawful Act manslaughter

2. Gross negligence manslaughter

Murder: unlawful killing of human being with malice aforethought (indictable only; mandatory life)

• AR [of all homicides]: unlawfully cause the death of a human being

• Human being: a child is only a human being when its whole body is out of the mother and exists independently of the mother – they must be a human being at the time of death

• Where pregnant mother is attacked carrying child who is then born prematurely and dies. MR for murder towards mom can’t be transferred to foetus, because the foetus isn’t a human being

• Death: when the brain has died even if artificial means is keeping victim alive (R v Malcherek)

• Causation: D’s conduct must be the cause of victim’s death [more than one person can be the cause of death, so both liable]

  • Factual Causation: But for test – but for defendants conduct, would the victim have died as and when they did when they did?

• Where less clear: did D significantly accelerate the V’s death? i.e. was the acceleration ‘more than negligible’?

  • Legal Causation:

    1. was the defendant’s conduct an OPERATING AND SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE of the victim’s death?

  • D’s conduct doesn’t have to be the sole or main cause, just to have contributed significantly (more than minimally) (Pagett)

    1. INTERVENING EVENTS: did an intervening event break the chain of causation?

• Foreseeable events will not break chain of causation (only acts that are so daft that make them the victim’s own voluntary act will break the chain)

• Events will not break the chain if the injuries from D’s conduct were still an operating and substantial cause of death

  • Same test of foreseeability applies to cases where there is no physical inflicted injury (Watson)

  • Generally, negligent medical treatment won’t doesn’t break chain of causation, except where it is so ‘potent’ and ‘independent’ of the original defendant’s conduct that their contribution becomes ‘insignificant’ (Cheshire) i.e. did D still contribute more than minimally to the death?

  • Thin-skull rule (‘egg-shell rule’): ‘TAKE YOUR VICTIM AS YOU FIND THEM’ – D is liable even if V had an unforeseeable pre-existing condition which exacerbated their injury, or religious belief leading them to refuse treatment

• MR: INTENT TO KILL or CAUSE GBH [to a human being] (R v Moloney)

  • direct or indirect intent

  • human being part of mens rea applies where defendant was intoxicated & mistakenly believes V isn’t a human being – they won’t have mens rea for murder

Partial Defences to murder (if AR & MR are satisfied)

• Voluntary Manslaughter: D will only be liable for voluntary manslaughter if they have a partial defence of diminished responsibility or loss of control

• only partial defences (so still be liable for voluntary manslaughter)

• only defences to murder (no other crime)

• D can raise both defences at once if they apply

• DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY: where D had a recognised medical condition which partially excuses their conduct

• Burden of proof: D must prove beyond a balance of probabilities (over 50%)

• D will not be convicted of murder if they:

1. Suffered from an abnormality of mental functioning

2. Which arose from a recognised medical condition

3. substantially impaired their ability to:

   1. understand the nature of their conduct, or

   2. form a rational judgement, or

   3. exercise self-control

4. the abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for their conduct in the killing i.e. it must have caused, or significantly contributed towards causing D’s conduct (i.e. conduct wouldn’t have happened if not for their condition)

• medical evidence will help establish this

• substantial impairment = important or weighty impairment

• Generally, D CAN’T RELY ON DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY IF THEY WERE VOLUNTARILY INTOXICATED

  • if D has alcohol dependence syndrome, in deciding whether they can rely on diminished responsibility, the jury should ignore the idea of voluntary intoxication and ONLY FOCUS ON THE EFFECT OF ALCOHOL CONSUMED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR ALCOHOL DEPENDENCY, and ignore the effect of any alcohol consumed voluntarily

  • if D voluntarily drunk triggering an episode of their recognised medical condition (e.g. schizophrenia, if medical evidence confirms it was the abnormality of mental functioning from the medical condition that caused their conduct, they could rely on diminished responsibility, even though it was not the sole cause of D’s conduct

• LOSS OF CONTROL: where D reached breaking point and lost self-control

• Burden of proof: D must raise some evidence of defence for the judge to think the defence may apply. If so, jury must assume defence if satisfied unless prosecution disproves beyond reasonable doubt

• D will not be guilty of murder if: [all must be satisfied]

  1. D’s conduct resulted from their loss of self-control

• Doesn’t have to be sudden (can be a culmination of events)

  1. the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger

• qualifying trigger if loss of control was due to

• fear of serious violence from the defendant against the victim or another, or

• things said or done which:

1. constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character [to that defendant], and

• SEXUAL INFIDELITY ALONE DOESN’T...