Example Resource: Murder Framework

Introduction

(D s name) could be charged with murder.

Murder is a result crime. The definition of murder was given by Judge Coke in the 17^th century: The unlawful killing with malice aforethought, express or implied .

A01

The AR of murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the queen s peace. The defendant must commit an unlawful killing . This can be committed by a voluntary act or an omission.

The actus reus will be satisfied if the death of V is unlawful, it will be unlawful if V s death occurred outside war and so was under the Queen s peace. The D must also not be acting in self-defence as in BECKFORD. The killing must take place within any country of the realm.

The V must be a reasonable person in being , meaning they had independent existence and circulation from their mother as in ATTORNEY-GENERAL S REFERENCE NO.3 of 1994.

The V will be considered dead if they have suffered irreversible brain stem injury as shown in Malackerk and Steel.

A02

(Ds name) committed a voluntary act when he killed (Vs name), this is because he (state how he killed him) Justify why the d killed either through an act or omission (use the scenario).

Include if omission: D s name killed by way of an omission

Omission: A failure to act will only be an offence if the D was under a duty to act. Here the duty was .. The duty arose because . (State case facts link to principle facts to the scenario) (Gibbins Proctor).

The death is unlawful as (Ds name) is not acting in a military capacity and therefore under the Queens Peace.

(V s name) is a human being and dies (state facts) which clearly means brain death (Discuss any issue here, if it was the V was an unborn baby).

D s killed within the United Kingdom as he killed ______________ (where was it?).

Causation

A01

It must be proven that the D is both the factual and legal cause of V s death. Factual causation uses the but for test, which simply requires the prosecution to prove that but for the D s act, the death would not have occurred. This is shown in the case of R v Pagett, where, but for him using his girlfriend as a human shield she would not have died. Legal causation, provides that d must be more than a minimal cause to the end result. This is shown in R v Kimsey, where D made more than a slight or trifling link to the end result. The thin skull rule must also be considered where D must take the victim as he finds him .

(Use the most relevant case)

- In Blaue, D was still the cause of death when the V refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds. (Use this case for characteristic).

- In Hayward, D was still liable for his wife s death even though he did not know she suffered from a thyroid condition when he shouted at her. (Use this case for physical weakness).

- In R v Dear, D was still liable as the injuries on the deceased were still a significant and operative cause of death. (Use this for self-neglect scenario)

- In Malcherek and Steel stated that a properly informed medical decision to terminate treatment in such circumstances would not break the chain. (Use this for switching off life support machine).

A02

Here, there is factual causation, (D s name) actions are the but for cause of V s death because but for . (USE FACTS) this is similar to R v Pagett.

Here, there is no doubt that there is legal causation because (D s name) made more than a minimal contribution to the death of (V s name) death because . (USE FACTS and link to case law)

OR

Here, (D s name) may NOT be the legal cause of (V s name) death as there may be a novous actus intervenient which could break the chain of causation when (USE FACTS and link to case law) (R v Cheshire)

ISSUES MAY INCLUDE: ONLY DISCUSS THE ONE WHICH IS RELEVANT

Medical Negligence

Medical negligence may break the chain but only if the act is independent of the D s acts and in itself so potent in causing death that the D s acts are insignificant (as shown in Jordan, where the V died from an allergic reaction to an antibiotic)

HERE .

The medical treatment was palpably wrong as it is so potent in causing death that the D s acts are insignificant , therefore the chain of causation is broken and (D s name) is no longer liable for the death (USE FACTS and describe what was palpably wrong and why the medical negligence rendered Ds acts as insignificant

OR

The injury caused by (D s name) is still made more than a minimal contribution to the death, therefore the chain of causation is not broken and (D s name) is still liable for the death (USE FACTS to explain why D is still the cause of death) (explain reasons) .

OR

Contribution of others may break the chain, the act of another will only break the chain if it is not reasonably foreseeable (as shown in R v Pagett where it was reasonably foreseeable that the police officers will fire back when acting in self-defence)

HERE . (USE FACTS) the act of another does not break the chain as the V s death is a result of some act that was reasonably foreseeable (Explain why it was reasonably foreseeable)

OR

Victims own contribution may break the chain. The test is if the V s own actions is regarded as daft (or unexpected or unreasonable), then the chain IS broken. If foreseeable, then D is still liable. V s conduct is something a reasonable and responsible man would have foreseen (objective), taking into account the nature of the attack. Per Stuart Smith LJ in Williams and Davis 1992.

- In Roberts 1971, the chain was not broken when V jumped out of a car to avoid sexual advances.

Here . (USE FACTS) . V s own act was reasonably foreseeable and therefore does not break the chain (justify why)

OR

Here Here . (USE FACTS) . V s own act was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore does break the chain (justify why)

A01

The mens rea for murder is malice aforethought, express or implied . Express malice aforethought means intention to kill. Implied malice aforethought means intention to cause GBH as in Vickers where D intending to cause GBH cannot guarantee that death will not follow.

Intention can be either direct or oblique.

Direct intention is where the D desires the resulting death, or the purpose of his acts are to kill. For example, Mohan, the D did everything in his power to bring about the prohibited consequence , when he accelerated fast towards the victim.

Oblique intention is where D may not foresee the outcome, but in acting the way he did, the outcome is virtually certain and D appreciates this. This is shown in R v Woolin where serious harm to the baby was a virtual certainty of D s action.

Following MATTHEWS ALLEYNE, foresight of consequences is evidence of intention, which the jury can rely on to find (D s name) guilty of murder.

A02

Here, the defendant had a

Direct intention to kill (expressed) because (D s name) did everything in is power to bring about the consequence (Mohan) when he .. (USE FACTS to justify choice, what evidence do you have to support this answer).

Alternative example at very least, D has a direct intention to cause GBH as

OR

Direct intention to cause GBH (Implied) because D s name) did everything in is power to bring about the consequence (Mohan) when he .. (USE FACTS to justify choice).

ALTERNATIVELY/ OR

D had an oblique intention to kill (expressed) because death was a virtual certain consequence of (D s name) actions and (D s name) must have realised this when he . (USE FACTS to justify choice).

OR

D had an oblique intention to cause GBH (implied) because serious harm was a virtual certain consequence of his actions and D must have realised this when . (USE FACTS to justify choice).

After following the Woolin rule, the jury is entitled to find intention, but does not have to be because it is only a rule of evidence. (Matthews and Alleyne).

IF RELEVANT ONLY TRANSFERRED MALICE AND THE COINCIDENCE RULE:

A01

Under the rule of transfer malice, the mens rea can be transferred from the intended V to the actual V, providing that the actus reus and mens rea coincide. This can be seen in the case of Latimer where the D hit a lady with a belt instead of the intended V. Latimer was guilty of an assault against the woman even though he had not intended to hit her.

A02

Here, the mens rea can be transferred from the intended V (Vs name) to the actual victim (Vs name) as the intention to ______ can be transferred, as the outcome is the same offence.

A01

If AR came first:

In situations where the actus reus of a crime is committed first and the mens rea is formed later, the court uses the `continuing act principle`. In Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1968 the D committed the actus reus when he drove onto the policeman`s foot but formed the mens rea later when he refused to move his car. It was held that as the actus reus was still continuing, therefore the actus reus and mens rea coincided.

If MR came first:

In situations where the mens rea of a crime is formed first and the actus reus is committed later, the court uses the `one transaction principle`.In Thabo Meli 1954 the D`s formed the mens rea of murder when beating up the V but the actus reus was committed later when the body was left exposed after being thrown off a cliff. It was held that it was all part of a series of connected acts, therefore the actus reus and mens rea coincided as it was treated as one transaction.

A02

Here...

The `continuing act principle` will apply.

The actus reus was committed first when (D`s name)...

The mens rea was formed later when (D`s name)...

As the actus reus was still continuing, the actus reus and mens rea have coincided and the (D`s name) is liable for (name offence).

Here...

The `one transaction principle` will apply.

The mens rea was formed first when (D`s name)...

The actus reus was committed later when (D`s name)... As it is all part of one single transaction, the actus reus and mens rea have coincided and the (D`s name) is liable for (name offence).

In conclusion, (D s name) is guilty of murder, resulting in a mandatory life sentence.