Murder

Introduction

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied. This serious offence in criminal law consists of two main elements: the actus reus (the guilty act) and the mens rea (the guilty mind). The actus reus involves the unlawful killing, while the mens rea requires an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Analyzing these components, alongside principles of causation and potential defenses, is essential for understanding the legal framework governing homicide.

Actus Reus of Murder

The actus reus of murder comprises three essential elements:

1. Unlawful Killing: This involves causing the death of a human being through illicit means. Lawful killings, such as those in self-defense or during lawful military actions, are excluded.

2. Of a Human Being: The victim must be a living person, recognized as such post-birth. The killing of a fetus is not classified as murder but may constitute an offense under statutes like the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.

3. Under the Queen's Peace: This phrase signifies that the killing must occur under the protection of the state's peace, excluding acts during wartime against enemy combatants.

Causation

Proving causation requires establishing both factual and legal connections between the defendant's actions and the victim's death:

• Factual Causation: Utilizes the "but for" test to determine whether the death would have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct. If the answer is no, factual causation is established.

• Legal Causation: The defendant's actions must be a significant contributing factor to the death, though not necessarily the sole cause. In R v Pagett [1983], the defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield during a shootout with police, resulting in her death. The court held that his actions significantly contributed to her death, establishing legal causation.

Intervening acts, or novus actus interveniens, can break the chain of causation if they are independent and unforeseeable. For example, in R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007], the victim's voluntary act of self-injecting drugs supplied by the defendant was considered an intervening act that broke the causal chain.

Mens Rea of Murder

The mens rea, or "malice aforethought," encompasses two types of intention:

1. Intent to Kill: The defendant's deliberate aim is to cause death.

2. Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH): The defendant intends to inflict serious bodily injury, which the law equates with malice aforethought.

English law does not require premeditation for murder; spontaneous intent suffices.

Direct and Oblique Intention

Courts distinguish between direct and oblique intention:

• Direct Intention: The defendant's primary purpose is to bring about the prohibited consequence. It's straightforward—if someone shoots another person aiming to kill, direct intention is established.

• Oblique Intention: The prohibited consequence is a virtually certain result of the defendant's actions, and the defendant foresees this. In R v Woollin [1999], the court held that if death or serious injury is a virtually certain outcome and the defendant appreciates that fact, a jury may infer intention.

Recklessness

Recklessness alone is insufficient for murder. In R v Cunningham [1982], the court determined that foreseeability of harm is not enough; there must be an intention to cause harm.

Legal Precedents

Several landmark cases have shaped the understanding of mens rea in murder:

1. R v Moloney [1985]: Provided guidance on inferring intention, emphasizing that mere foresight of probability is not equivalent to intent.

2. R v Hancock and Shankland [1986]: Clarified that the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen, and thus intended.

3. R v Nedrick [1986]: Established that if the result is a virtual certainty and the defendant recognizes this, intent can be inferred.

4. R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003]: Affirmed that foresight of virtual certainty does not automatically amount to intention but is strong evidence from which a jury can infer intent.

Defenses to Murder

Certain defenses can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter if successfully argued.

Diminished Responsibility

Under Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, diminished responsibility requires proving:

1. Abnormality of Mental Functioning: The defendant was suffering from a recognized medical condition.

2. Substantial Impairment: This condition substantially impaired the defendant's ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form rational judgments, or exercise self-control.

3. Causal Connection: The abnormality provides an explanation for the defendant's actions in killing.

In R v Golds [2016], the Supreme Court clarified that "substantial" means significant or appreciable—not trivial or minimal.

Loss of Control

Outlined in Sections 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, this defense requires:

1. Loss of Self-Control: The defendant lost self-control at the time of the act.

2. Qualifying Trigger: The loss of control was attributable to fear of serious violence or to things said or done which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character.

3. Normal Person Test: A person of the defendant's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint, might have reacted similarly.

Importantly, the loss of control need not be sudden, but revenge killings are excluded.

Examples and Applications

Oblique Intention

Consider a scenario where Jordan sets fire to a building to claim insurance money, knowing that residents are inside. Although Jordan's primary aim is financial gain, the virtual certainty that the fire will cause death, combined with Jordan's awareness, allows a jury to infer intent to kill, following R v Woollin [1999].

Causation and Intervening Acts

Consider Sam, who assaults Taylor, causing serious injuries. On the way to the hospital, the ambulance is struck by lightning, and Taylor dies. The lightning strike may be deemed an unforeseeable intervening act, potentially breaking the chain of causation as per principles from R v Cheshire [1991].

Diminished Responsibility

Olivia suffers from a severe mental disorder recognized by medical professionals. During a psychotic episode, she kills someone without understanding her actions. Evidence of her condition and its impact on her behavior could support a defense of diminished responsibility under the Homicide Act 1957.

Loss of Control

After enduring prolonged abuse, Liam reacts to a particularly grave incident by killing the abuser. If the circumstances meet the statutory criteria, Liam may seek to have the charge reduced to manslaughter under the loss of control defense.

Conclusion

The complex interplay between intention and causation forms the crux of murder in criminal law. Oblique intention, as delineated in R v Woollin [1999], requires careful evaluation of the defendant's foresight and the virtual certainty of the outcome. This intersects with causation principles, where establishing a chain of events linking the defendant's actions to the victim's death is essential. Intervening acts can complicate this link, necessitating analysis of foreseeability and independence.

Defenses such as diminished responsibility and loss of control introduce additional layers, requiring proof of specific statutory elements. The defendant's mental state, as in R v Golds [2016], or the presence of a qualifying trigger under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, can significantly affect the outcome.

Analyzing homicide cases demands integrating these legal principles. For instance, determining liability involves assessing whether the defendant had the necessary mens rea, whether the actus reus is established without interruption by intervening acts, and whether any defenses apply. Each element must be meticulously examined against authoritative sources and precedent cases.

Key Points:

• Actus Reus: Requires unlawful killing of a human under the Queen's Peace.

• Causation: Must establish both factual ("but for" test) and legal (significant contribution) causation.

• Mens Rea: Involves intent to kill or cause GBH, including direct and oblique intention.

• Legal Precedents: Cases like R v Woollin and R v Moloney provide guidance on intention.

• Defenses: Diminished responsibility and loss of control can reduce murder to manslaughter if statutory criteria are met.

• Application: Proper application of these principles determines liability in homicide cases.