Homicide

Pg1) Actus Reus

 The actus reus of all homicides is the unlawful killing of another human being in Queen’s peace
 The year and a day rule was abolished by the law reform (year and a day rule) 1996
 A lawful killing would be out of self defence
 Murder is a consequence offence and must therefore satisfy causation
 R v White – But For test
 R v Cheshire – Significant contribution
 R v Blaue – Thin skull rule
Pg2) Mens Rea
 The definition of murder as defined by Edward Coke is ‘malice aforethought’
 R v Maloney modernized malice aforethought
 Expressed malice (intention to kill)
 Implied Malice (intention to cause GBH)
Pg3) Mens Rea part 2
 Murder is a specific intent offence
 Two types of intention
 Direct intention (desired the outcome)
 Indirect intention (D virtually certain of outcome R v woolin Virtual certainty test, R v Cunningham)
Pg4) Linking paragraph
 Voluntary manslaughter has the same AR and MR of murder
 Found under s2 and s3 of the homicide act 1957
 If successful D avoids mandatory life and will gain maximum life
 The burden of proof is on the defendant
 It is a partial defence of murder alone
Pg 5) Diminished responsibility (s2 homicide act)
1) Abnormality of the mind
 R v Byrne – Lord parker stated ‘a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that the
reasonable man would term it abnormal’
2) Arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease
or injury
 R v Tandy – an alcoholic would have a defence as it is considered a disease but a drunk person wouldn’t
3) Impairment of mental responsibility
 Substantial impairment test (not total impairment like in insanity)
Pg 6) Provocation
1) Is the evidence of provocation
 R v Doughty – the sound of a baby crying is enough to constitute a provocative act
2) Did D lose self control (subjective test)
 Lord Devlin ‘a sudden and temporary loss of self control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make
him for the moment not master of his mind’
 R v Thornton – visible cooling of period so no provocation
 R v Thornton 2 – can be a cooling of period if evidence of a last straw ( R v Humphries)
3) Would the reasonable man have done as D did? (Objective test)
 Ag v Holley – narrowed the test of the reasonable man back till it resembled R v Champlin
 Certain characteristics are attributable (affect the gravity of the provocation) and others are undesirable traits
(things that make you lose control). If undesirable say… may be construed as pugnacious and excluded from a
defence in s.3