Example: Suggested Response

Harry and Matt Suggested Answer

Highlight below the

A01- Explanation of the law- in pink

A01 a- Application of the law- in yellow

A01 b- Justification of the application- in green

Harry could be liable for the offence of murder which Lord Coke defined as the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied .

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

To commit the actus reus Harry must unlawfully kill Matt. The actus reus is satisfied as Matt s death is unlawful as it wasn t a lawful execution, his death occurred outside war and so was under the Queen s peace. He was also not acting in self-defence as in BECKFORD. Matt was a reasonable person in being, as there wasn t irreversible death of the brain stem, as in MALCHEREK STEEL and he had independent existence and circulation as in ATTORNEY-GENERAL S REFERENCE NO.3 of 1994.

Harry committed a voluntary act when he killed Matt, this is because he physically set fire to the kitchen area where Matt was working and the fire spread.

The chain of causation must create a direct link between the D s actions and the death. Harry s actions caused the death of Matt. Factual causation is based on the but for test (but for D s actions would V have lived ). This can be seen in R v WHITE, where the D was not the factual cause. Legal causation means that the Ds act must be more than a minimal cause (CATO) of the death and there must be more than a slight or trifling link between Ds act and the death (KIMSEY) . Also, important is the thin skull rule where the D can t rely on a deficiency in the V to escape liability, as shown in R v BLAUE.

Firstly, but for Harry setting fire to the kitchen area, Matt would not have died, so factual causation is present. Harry is also the legal cause of Matt s death as his conduct was the only cause of death. Therefore, his contribution to his death was more than a minimal cause following CATO and was more than a slight or trifling link following KIMSEY. There is no break in the chain of causation, as the fire is not a natural or unpredictable event that breaks the chain, in these particular circumstances because it was started by Harry. Harry s actions caused the death of Matt.

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.

Here, Harry went to the restaurant already furious and then had an argument during which insults were exchanged. Straight after this, he set fire to the kitchen area. Therefore, Harry had a direct express intention. This is because if Harry knew Matt was still there when he set the fire and he did it in close proximity, all these things show he did everything in his power to kill Matt, as in MOHAN. However, as he did not set fire to Matt himself, there is an argument that he only had oblique intention. It could be argued that it was virtually certain that by setting fire to the area where Matt was working, that he could be seriously burnt and/or die. Further Harry must have realised this when he started the fire (WOOLLIN).

To conclude, Harry is guilty of murder and would receive a mandatory life sentence.