Homicide offences - Murder

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Murder, a fundamental part of criminal law, requires detailed knowledge for the SQE1 FLK2 exam. While rooted in common law, it's shaped by both statute and case law, demanding comprehension of its elements: actus reus and mens rea. This guide explores these components, highlights key legal precedents, and discusses defenses that may lessen culpability. By breaking down murder's complexities, candidates can refine the analytical skills needed for both academic and practical applications.

Actus Reus of Murder

The actus reus consists of three primary elements:

  1. Unlawful killing: Involves the death of a human being through illegal means, excluding situations like self-defense or wartime actions.

  2. Of a human being: The victim must be a living person, born alive. Killing a fetus is not classified as murder but may fall under other offenses like the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.

  3. Under the Queen's peace: Historically excluded wartime killings but now mainly establishes jurisdiction.

Causation

Proving causation is essential for actus reus. The prosecution must establish both factual and legal causation:

  • Factual causation: Using the 'but for' test, which requires showing that, but for the defendant’s actions, the death would not have occurred.

  • Legal causation: The defendant’s act must be a significant cause of death, not necessarily the only one. For example, in R v Pagett (1983), the defendant’s use of a hostage as a shield was a substantial cause of death, even with a police-fired shot.

Intervening acts can break this chain, depending on their nature and foreseeability, as seen in R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007].

Mens Rea of Murder

The mens rea, or "malice aforethought," includes two intentions:

  1. Intent to kill: Direct intention to cause death.
  2. Intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH): Intention to cause serious injury.

Notably, premeditation isn’t required for murder in English law.

Direct and Oblique Intention

Courts identify direct and oblique intentions:

  • Direct intention: The defendant’s aim is the prohibited outcome.
  • Oblique intention: The prohibited outcome is foreseen as nearly certain, even if not the aim.

R v Woollin [1999] established the approach to oblique intention: a jury may find intention when death or serious harm is virtually certain and understood by the defendant.

Recklessness

Recklessness alone doesn't suffice for murder, affirmed in R v Cunningham [1981], where foresight of high probability doesn’t meet the threshold.

Legal Precedents

Significant cases have shaped the mens rea interpretation:

  1. R v Moloney [1985]: Introduced a two-stage test for oblique intention.
  2. R v Hancock and Shankland [1986]: Foresight of probability is evidence, not a rule.
  3. R v Nedrick [1986]: Guidelines for juries on oblique intention.
  4. R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003]: Woollin direction is advisory, not obligatory.

Defenses to Murder

Certain defenses can reduce murder charges to manslaughter:

Diminished Responsibility

Outlined in s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957, this requires:

  1. Abnormal mental functioning
  2. From a recognized medical condition
  3. Substantially impairing the defendant's abilities
  4. Explaining the defendant's actions

R v Golds [2016] clarified "substantial" as "important enough to make a difference."

Loss of Control

Introduced by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, this involves:

  1. Loss of self-control
  2. A qualifying trigger, such as fear of violence
  3. Reaction similar to someone with typical self-restraint

This defense is invalid if actions were driven by revenge.

Examples and Applications

  1. Oblique Intention: D throws V into a river knowing V can't swim, leading to death. Despite claims of mere fright, a jury could infer intention due to the virtual certainty of death.

  2. Causation and Intervening Acts: D’s action remains a significant cause of death even if V rejects medical treatment for personal reasons, as seen in R v Blaue [1975].

  3. Diminished Responsibility: D’s severe depression impairs rational judgment, potentially reducing the charge.

  4. Loss of Control: Years of abuse lead Emma to attack her partner. The cumulative effect could serve as a qualifying trigger.

Conclusion

Understanding murder in the context of homicide is essential for SQE1 FLK2 candidates. Familiarity with actus reus and mens rea, alongside intention and causation nuances, is vital. Equally important is knowing the defenses and their criteria. Candidates must be adept at applying these principles to complex scenarios, demonstrating their ability to critically analyze the elements and defenses involved. This solid knowledge base supports both exam success and a future in criminal law practice.

Key Points:

  • Actus reus requires unlawful killing of a human under the Queen's peace.
  • Causation includes factual ('but for' test) and legal (significant cause).
  • Mens rea involves intent to kill or cause GBH, with direct and oblique distinctions.
  • Cases like Woollin and Moloney influence intention interpretation.
  • Defenses like diminished responsibility and loss of control can mitigate charges.
  • Practical application of legal principles is critical for exams and practice.