Scribd
Upload
7 views3 pages

Answer 2

The document discusses the legal definition of murder, emphasizing the necessary elements of actus reus and mens rea, and outlines the potential court proceedings and mandatory life sentence for murder. It also explores the possibility of a defense of loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, detailing the requirements for such a defense and how it could reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter. The document concludes with considerations on whether Kate's defense would be successful and its implications for her sentencing.

Uploaded by

nargis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views3 pages

Answer 2

The document discusses the legal definition of murder, emphasizing the necessary elements of actus reus and mens rea, and outlines the potential court proceedings and mandatory life sentence for murder. It also explores the possibility of a defense of loss of control under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, detailing the requirements for such a defense and how it could reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter. The document concludes with considerations on whether Kate's defense would be successful and its implications for her sentencing.

Uploaded by

nargis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Introduction

Give a brief introduction to murder, discuss the court it might be heard in


and the sentence (mandatory life)
Murder is an indictable offence
Sentence = Life
Murder was defined in the common law by Lord Coke as the unlawful
killing of a reasonable person in being under the Kings peace, with malice
aforethought express or implied.
To be found guilty of murder it must be shown that Kate had the actus
reus and mens rea of murder and was the cause of the death.
To prove the actus reus of murder there must be:
- Age of discretion – The defendant must be over 10 to be held
criminally liable. In this scenario we do not have evidence of Kates
age, therefore we will assume she is over 10.

- Unlawful killing – In this scenario there was no lawful reason for Kate
to kill Danni. A lawful killing was seen in Airdale NHS Trust v
Bland where the court gave permission for the hospital to turn off
the life support machine as Bland was in a persistent vegetative
state and showed no signs of recovery.

- Reasonable person in being – A reasonable person in being is


someone who has a brainstem function and/or is not a foetus. In R v
Malcherek and Steel the life support machine was switched off
due to the victims having no brainstem function, the doctors were
not held liable for their death as they were already considered
legally dead. In AGs Reference (No 3 of 1994) the defendant was
not held liable for the death of a baby as when he stabbed the
mother in the stomach the baby was a foetus, a foetus is not
considered a human in being. In Kates case Danni was not a foetus
and had a functioning brain stem, therefore she was considered a
reasonable person in being.

- Under the kings peace – Finally, the killing must not take place
under the Kings Peace. In R v Page the defendant killed an
Egyptian national whilst he was off duty, this killing was not in the
course of war and therefore it amounted to a murder. In this case,
Kate was under the kings peace and the killing was not in the course
of war therefore, she satisfied that actus reus for murder.

Causation:
Causation is a chain of events which look at whether the defendants act
caused the end result, in this case the death. To prove causation we must
prove that the defendant is the factual and legal cause of the death.
Factual causation is proved by looking at the but for test which was taken
from R v White. This test looks at whether the end result would not have
occurred but for the defendants actions.
But for Kate hitting Danni with a cricket bat, she would not have died,
therefore Kate is the factual cause of the harm.
Legal causation looks at what the substantial and operative cause of the
death was (R v Cato). In this case, the substantial and operative cause of
Dannis death was Kate repeatedly hitting Danni with a bat.
There is no evidence of any intervening acts in the scenario. So therefore,
Kate is the cause of the death. (be sure to discuss the relevant intervening
act and cases if they are present in the scenario)

Mens rea:
The mens rea of murder is “malice aforethought, express or implied”
- Express malice is the intention to kill (Mohan)
- Implied malice is the intention to cause GBH (Vickers)
In this case it is clear from Kates actions that she intended to kill Danni by
beating her with a bat, therefore she has express malice and would be
liable for the murder of Danni.

Defence:
Kate could possibly argue the defence of loss control under the Coroners
and Justice Act 2009. If she is successful, her charge will be reduced
from murder to voluntary manslaughter and her prison sentence will be
reduced.
Loss of control replaced the previous defence of provocation which was
considered problematic due to gender bias and unfair cases being
successful (R v Doughty). (more evaluation can be shown here and
throughout to get AO4 marks)
In order to prove loss of control there must be: a loss of self control, which
has a qualifying trigger and that a reasonable person of the same sex and
age as the defendant, with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint,
would have acted in the same of a similar way.
Loss of self control – Loss of self control can now be a slow burn R v
Thornton/Ahluwalia. (compare to provocation here for evaluation
marks)
In Ahluwalia, the defendant set her husband on fire and killed him after
years of abuse. She was able to argue that there was a slow burn which
eventually resulted in a loss of control.
However, it is important that the loss of control cannot be revenge (r v
Jewell – explain)
Kate had a loss of self control after Danni was mocking her life, this
caused her to kill Danni. There is no evidence to suggest that this was
revenge.

Qualifying trigger:
- Fear – serious harm to you or others (lodge)
- Anger – things said or done which amount to a grave character and
give the defendant a justifiable sense of being wronged (Zebedee)
- In Kates case, the anger trigger is present. Danni said things which
amounted to a grave character and gave Kate a justifiable sense of
being wronged.
(discuss exceptions if relevant – incited the violence/sexual infidelity)

A reasonable person of the same sex and age as the defendant, with a
normal degree of tolerance and self restraint, would have acted in the
same of a similar way.
Would a reasonable person act in the same way?
Can support with Van Dongen (may not have acted in to the same
extremeness)

Conclusion – were they successful in pleading the defence and why?


What did that do to their sentence?

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy