Introduction to Criminal Homicide

Criminal homicide represents one of the most severe categories of

offenses in criminal law, encompassing any unlawful killing of a human
being by another. This introductory section sets the stage for
understanding the complex legal frameworks that govern the intentional
and unintentional ending of life, delineating the boundaries between
justifiable, excusable, and criminal actions. The study of criminal homicide
not only challenges one's understanding of legal statutes but also invokes
deep ethical and moral questions about the value of human life and
justice.

7.1 Common Elements in Criminal Homicide

Criminal homicide, by legal definition, involves the killing of one human

being by another. To classify a death as criminal homicide, certain
universal elements must be present:

 Unlawfulness: The act must occur without legal justification or

excuse.
 Actus Reus: There must be an act that results in death, whether it
is direct (e.g., shooting) or indirect (e.g., setting a fatal trap).
 Mens Rea: The perpetrator must have had a culpable state of
mind, typically involving intent or recklessness.

Understanding these elements is crucial for dissecting the legal culpability

in homicide cases. The actus reus and mens rea must align for an act to
be considered criminal under the law, and each case must be examined
on its specific facts to determine the exact nature of the homicide—
whether it falls under murder, manslaughter, or another category of
unlawful killing. This foundational knowledge serves as a critical first step
in the broader exploration of criminal homicide within the justice system.

Section 7.2: Murder

Definition and Elements of Murder

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with

"malice aforethought." This malice can be expressed or implied and
requires intent to kill, inflict serious harm, or gross recklessness regarding
human life. The legal classification of murder often falls into two
categories: first-degree and second-degree murder, differentiated by the
presence or absence of premeditation and deliberation.

First-Degree Murder

First-degree murder requires premeditation, deliberation, and the

intentional carrying out of the lethal act. It is characterized by a calculated
decision to kill, made in a cool and dispassionate manner. A classic
example is found in the case of R v Cox (1884) where the defendant
meticulously planned and executed a poisoning, demonstrating clear
premeditation.
Second-Degree Murder

Second-degree murder includes killings that are intentional but lack

premeditation. It typically involves impulsive actions driven by strong
emotions but still with an intent to kill. R v Byrne (1960) is often cited,
where the defendant acted impulsively under emotional distress but still
intended to kill the victim.

Felony Murder Rule

In many jurisdictions, a death that occurs during the commission of a

felony (e.g., robbery, rape) is treated as first-degree murder, regardless of
the perpetrator's intent to kill. This rule is intended to act as a deterrent to
committing felonies that could foreseeably result in death. The seminal
case R v Serne (1887) laid down the parameters for applying the felony
murder rule, emphasizing the foreseeability of death during the
commission of a dangerous felony.

Case Law Examples and Legal Precedents

 R v Vickers (1957): Established that an intention to cause

grievous bodily harm is sufficient for murder if the victim dies from
injuries.
 R v Cunningham (1982): Highlighted the distinction between
direct intent and oblique intent in murder cases. The case illustrated
that for a conviction of murder, it is not always necessary for the
defendant to have a direct intent to kill; it can be enough if death
was a virtually certain result of the defendant’s actions, and the
defendant foresaw this.
 R v Moloney (1985): Clarified the threshold of foresight in terms
of oblique intent. The court held that foresight of death as a natural
consequence of one's actions could establish the necessary mens
rea for murder.
 R v Woollin (1998): Further refined the test for oblique intent by
stating that a result foreseen as a virtual certainty by the defendant
and also viewed as such by the jury is indicative of intent.


Section 7.3: Voluntary Manslaughter

Overview of Voluntary Manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person kills another without malice

aforethought, which is typically present in murder. This reduction from
murder to manslaughter hinges on circumstances that can partially
excuse the perpetrator’s actions, making them less blameworthy than
typical murder.

Legal Framework and Definitions

 Definition: Voluntary manslaughter includes killings that would be

considered murder except for the presence of mitigating
circumstances that reduce the killer’s moral culpability.
  Mitigating Circumstances: These typically include provocation,
sudden passion, or diminished capacity.

Defense of Loss of Self-Control Under the Coroners and Justice Act

2009

The defense of loss of self-control offers a crucial mitigation from murder

to manslaughter in cases where the defendant acts under certain extreme
psychological pressures. Enshrined in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009,
sections 54 and 55, this defense reflects a sophisticated legal recognition
of human emotional and psychological complexity.

Legal Framework Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

 Section 54 (1) of the Act stipulates that for the defense to be

applicable, the killing must result from the defendant's loss of self-
control, which had a qualifying trigger and might have caused a
person with similar characteristics to react similarly.
 Section 54 (2) clarifies that the loss of self-control need not be
sudden, allowing for delayed reactions to provocative events which
acknowledge the reality of psychological build-up.

Qualifying Triggers Explained

 Fear of Serious Violence (Section 55 (3)): The statute

recognizes that a genuine fear of serious violence against oneself or
another can trigger actions leading to death. This provision aims to
address situations where the defendant reacts defensively to a
perceived threat.
 Things Said or Done (Section 55 (4)): A broader range of
provocation is covered under this category, where actions or words
can lead to a loss of self-control. The law requires that these
provocations be extremely distressing to the defendant, potentially
leading to an unpremeditated violent reaction.

Exclusions and Limitations

 Sexual Infidelity (Section 55 (6)(c)): Explicitly excluded as a

trigger. This legislative choice underscores a policy decision that
jealousy or betrayal does not excuse a loss of control leading to
homicide. However, the context of sexual infidelity might be
considered if it part of broader provocative conduct.

Objective Test for Reasonableness

 The defense also requires an objective assessment of whether a

person of the same age and gender, with a normal degree of
tolerance and self-restraint, and in the defendant's circumstances,
might have reacted in the same or a similar manner. This test, as
 laid out in Section 54 (1)(c), ensures that the defense is not
misapplied to excuse overly sensitive or disproportionate reactions
to common interactions.

Case Law Interpretations

 R v Clinton, Parker, and Evans (2012): This key case clarified

that while sexual infidelity alone cannot qualify as a trigger, it can
be considered when evaluating other provocative behavior under
the "things said or done" category.
 R v Dawes, Hatter, and Bowyer (2013): The court examined the
nuances of what constitutes sufficient provocation, emphasizing
that mere insults or trivial actions do not typically rise to the level of
justifying loss of self-control.

 Legal Principle: The law recognizes that a person provoked into a

heat of passion may act impulsively and without the malice
necessary for murder.
 Case Law: R v Duffy (1949) established that for provocation to
reduce murder to manslaughter, the provocation must be such that
it would cause an ordinary person to lose control. Additionally, there
must be a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, making the act
of killing almost instinctual.

Defense of diminished responsibility

The defense of diminished responsibility is detailed in your provided guide

under the context of UK law, specifically outlined in the Coroners and
Justice Act 2009, Section 52. This defense reduces the charge from murder
to manslaughter if the defendant can prove an abnormality of mental
functioning, which arose from a recognized medical condition,
substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature of their
conduct, form rational judgments, or control themselves, and provides an
explanation for their acts.

Key Cases and Principles Established:

R v Byrne (1960): A significant case where the court recognized that

severe mental illness could be a ground for diminished responsibility,
noting that the abnormality of mind must be substantial and impair the
defendant's mental responsibility for their acts.

R v Golds (2016): Clarified the meaning of 'substantial' in the context of

diminished responsibility, emphasizing that the impairment must be more
than merely trivial.

R v Dietschmann (2003): Established that if the defendant, despite an

abnormality of mental functioning, knew what they were doing was legally
wrong, they might still be convicted. However, the jury must consider
whether the abnormality substantially impaired their mental
responsibility.

Section 7.4: Involuntary Manslaughter

Overview of Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter involves killings that occur without the intent to

cause death but result from either criminal negligence or during the
commission of a non-felony crime. It is distinguished from voluntary
manslaughter by the absence of intent and mitigating circumstances like
provocation.

Types of Involuntary Manslaughter

 Criminally Negligent Manslaughter: Occurs when death results

from a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care.
 Unlawful Act Manslaughter: Involves a death that occurs during
the commission of an unlawful act that is inherently dangerous but
not a felony.

Key Legal Principles and Case Law

 Negligence and Duty of Care: The law examines whether the

defendant owed a duty of care to the victim and breached this duty
through negligence.

o R v Adomako [1994]: An anesthetist’s negligence during

surgery resulted in patient death, establishing a breach of
duty that directly led to involuntary manslaughter.

 Unlawful Act Consideration: The act leading to death must be

criminal but not necessarily intended to cause harm.
o R v Franklin (1883): A case where the defendant casually
threw a box off a pier, striking and killing a swimmer. His
unintentional yet unlawful act resulted in a conviction for
involuntary manslaughter.