Homicide offences - Murder

Learning Outcomes

After studying this article, you will be able to explain the legal definition and elements of murder, distinguish between direct and oblique intention, apply causation principles, and identify key defences that may reduce liability from murder to manslaughter. You will also be able to analyse practical scenarios and answer SQE1-style questions on this topic.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the offence of murder and its practical implications. Focus your revision on:

• the legal definition and elements of murder (actus reus and mens rea)
• the distinction between direct and oblique intention
• the requirements for causation, including factual and legal causation, and intervening acts
• the operation of partial defences (diminished responsibility and loss of control) that may reduce murder to manslaughter
• how to apply these principles to SQE1-style MCQs and client scenarios

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which of the following best describes the mens rea for murder?
   1. Intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm
   2. Recklessness as to causing death
   3. Intention to cause actual bodily harm
   4. Negligence causing death
2. Which of the following is required to prove murder?
   1. The victim must be a human being
   2. The killing must be under the Queen’s Peace
   3. The defendant must have acted with malice aforethought
   4. All of the above
3. Which partial defence, if successful, reduces murder to manslaughter?
   1. Diminished responsibility
   2. Self-defence
   3. Automatism
   4. Consent

4. True or false? Oblique intention can be established where death is a virtually certain result of the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciates this.

Introduction

Murder is the most serious homicide offence in English law. For SQE1, you must know its definition, the required actus reus and mens rea, how causation is established, and the main partial defences that can reduce murder to manslaughter. This article provides a concise, exam-focused overview of these core principles.

Definition and Elements of Murder

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought. The prosecution must prove both the actus reus and mens rea.

Key Term: actus reus The physical element of an offence—here, the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace.

Key Term: mens rea The mental element of an offence—here, intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Actus Reus: Unlawful Killing

The actus reus of murder consists of three requirements:

1. Unlawful killing: The defendant must cause the death of the victim without lawful justification (e.g., not in self-defence or during war).
2. Of a human being: The victim must be a living person, born alive and independent of the mother.
3. Under the Queen’s Peace: The killing must not occur during lawful armed conflict.

Causation

The prosecution must prove that the defendant’s conduct caused the victim’s death, both factually and legally.

Key Term: causation The link between the defendant’s conduct and the prohibited result, requiring both factual and legal causation.

Factual Causation

Apply the “but for” test: Would the victim have died but for the defendant’s act or omission? If not, factual causation is established.

Legal Causation

The defendant’s act must be a significant (more than minimal) cause of death. The chain of causation must not be broken by an independent, unforeseeable event (novus actus interveniens).

Key Term: novus actus interveniens A new, intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s conduct and the result.

Worked Example 1.1

A stabs B, who is taken to hospital. On the way, the ambulance is struck by lightning and B dies instantly. Is A legally responsible for B’s death?

Answer: The lightning strike is an unforeseeable, independent event that breaks the chain of causation. A is not liable for murder, but may be liable for attempted murder or another offence.

Mens Rea: Malice Aforethought

The mens rea for murder is “malice aforethought,” which means either:

• intention to kill, or
• intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

Recklessness is not sufficient for murder.

Direct and Oblique Intention

Key Term: direct intention The defendant’s aim or purpose is to bring about the prohibited result (e.g., death).

Key Term: oblique intention The prohibited result is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s actions, and the defendant appreciates this.

Direct intention is straightforward: the defendant acts to kill or cause GBH. Oblique intention arises where the defendant foresees death or serious injury as a virtually certain consequence, even if not their primary aim.

Worked Example 1.2

D sets fire to a house to frighten the occupants, knowing they are inside. The fire kills one person. D claims he only wanted to scare them.

Answer: If death was a virtually certain result of D’s actions and D appreciated this, the jury may find oblique intention and convict D of murder.

Exam Warning

For murder, the prosecution must prove intention to kill or cause GBH. Recklessness, negligence, or motive alone are not sufficient.

Causation: Intervening Acts

The chain of causation may be broken by a voluntary, informed act of the victim or a third party, or by an unforeseeable natural event. However, the defendant remains liable if the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable or if the victim’s response was proportionate to the threat.

Worked Example 1.3

D punches V, who refuses medical treatment for religious reasons and dies. Is D liable for murder?

Answer: Yes. The “thin skull” rule means the defendant must take the victim as found, including any vulnerabilities or beliefs.

Key Term: thin skull rule The defendant is liable for the full consequences of their act, even if the victim has an unusual characteristic or belief that contributes to the result.

Partial Defences to Murder

Certain defences, if successful, reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Diminished Responsibility

A defendant may rely on diminished responsibility if, at the time of the killing, they suffered from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition, which substantially impaired their ability to understand their conduct, form rational judgment, or exercise self-control, and provides an explanation for the killing.

Key Term: diminished responsibility A partial defence to murder where the defendant’s mental condition substantially impaired their responsibility for the killing.

Loss of Control

A defendant may rely on loss of control if:

• they lost self-control,
• the loss resulted from a qualifying trigger (fear of serious violence or things said/done of extremely grave character causing a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged),
• and a person of the defendant’s sex and age with normal tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted similarly.

Key Term: loss of control A partial defence to murder where the defendant lost self-control due to a qualifying trigger, reducing liability to manslaughter.

Worked Example 1.4

F, after years of abuse, kills her partner during a violent argument. She claims she lost control after being threatened and insulted.

Answer: If the jury finds F lost self-control due to a qualifying trigger and a normal person might have reacted similarly, the charge may be reduced to manslaughter.

Revision Tip

For SQE1, focus on the elements of each partial defence and when they apply. Know the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Summary

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Murder requires unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace with intention to kill or cause GBH.
• Causation must be established, including both factual and legal causation, and the chain must not be broken by an independent, unforeseeable event.
• Direct intention is where death or GBH is the defendant’s aim; oblique intention is where death or GBH is a virtually certain result and the defendant appreciates this.
• Partial defences (diminished responsibility and loss of control) can reduce murder to manslaughter if all statutory elements are satisfied.
• For SQE1, be able to apply these principles to practical scenarios and MCQs.

Key Terms and Concepts

• actus reus
• mens rea
• causation
• novus actus interveniens
• direct intention
• oblique intention
• thin skull rule
• diminished responsibility
• loss of control