HOMICIDE

Common Element
 Unlawful Killing (A killing is only legal if it is unintentional, in self-defense, or by
authorities or armed forces, as soldiers and police officers may kill in the course of their
duties, but they will be held accountable if they go beyond their responsibilities or misuse
their authority, R v Clegg)
Airedale Trust v Bland It is lawful to withdraw treating a patient who is in a vegetative
condition.
 Human Being (Criminal Homicide only protects living human-beings and a fetus is not
deemed as a human being and therefore a person who kills a fetus cannot be charged for
murder AG Reference no 3 1994)
Murder
 Unlawful Killing of a Human Being in Queens peace with Malice aforethought
 AR (Unlawful Killing of Human Being)
MR (Malice Aforethought, Intention to Kill or Cause GBH)
Intention to Kill (expressed malice)
Intention to Cause GBH (Implied malice)
The extension of Mensrea was laid down in the case of R v Vickers which was confirmed
by R v Cunningham under which intention can be direct or indirect and the test for
indirect intention is laid down in R v Woollin
 Sentence (Mandatory life imprisonment)
Voluntary Manslaughter
 Other than general defences three special defences available for murder which can reduce
the conviction of Murder to ‘Voluntary Manslaughter’ is successfully pleaded bringing
the sentence to be decided by the judge to a Maximum of Life imprisonment
 Defences
i) Provocation
(Old law applying to cases before 2009) for this defence the requirement was that
provocation must be ‘sudden’ and ‘temporary loss of control, R v Duffy, as the
Victim in R v Ahluwalia could not get the defence of provocation since
provocation was not sudden or temporary
ii) Loss of Self-Control
(This defence reduces the liability of murder to manslaughter and came under the
Corners and Justice Act 2009 which retained the overall structure but restricted its
application considerably as under the old law self-defence could be triggered by
crying baby or sexual jealousy)
 Section 54(1) of CJA states that “A person who kills or was a party to killing may
be convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter, rather than murder where
a) There is a loss of Self-Control
 b) Loss of Self-control had a qualifying trigger
c) A person of defendant's sex or age with a typical level of tolerance in the
defendant's circumstances would have reacted similarly(Objective Test)
Section 54 1(a) No requirement that loss of self-control has to be sudden or
temporary under section 54(2). The defence is not available if killing was done in
revenge under section 54(4) and requires that it must be triggered by something
Section 54 1(b) Under section 55 of the act there are two qualifying triggers
which can be used as a ground for a partial defence of loss of self-control
*First Qualifying Trigger Section 55(3) states that “where the defendant’s loss of
self-control was attributable to defendants fear of serious violence by the victim”
R v Clegg Where the defendant killed the victim and there was reason for fear but
no good reason for an overreaction to the fear
*Second Qualifying Trigger Section 55(4) states that “where defendants loss of
self-control was attributable to a thing done or said which firstly constituted
circumstances of a situation of extremely ‘grave character’ This provision is
intended to exclude out triggers such as crying babies and sexual envy, and to
provide the defendant a reasonable sense of "being seriously wrong" it will
normally follow from being the subject of an extra ordinary grave character that a
person senses being seriously wrong
*Limitations on Qualifying Trigger Under section 55(6) two further limitations
Under section 55(6)(a) Sexual jealousy to be disregarded now under the new law
sexual jealousy and unjustified anger is no longer a trigger
R v Clinton the defendant's wife was cheating and made statements to the
defendant, who then killed the victim, and it was determined that sexual jealousy
or family honor were not qualifying factors
R v Dawes and R v Hatter Reaffirmed Clinton's case that a split in a relationship
does not constitute extremely serious circumstances and does not entitle the
parties to a legitimate sense of being seriously wrong in their convictions were
upheld
Under section 55(6)(b) A person cannot raise a qualifying trigger if he incites (on
purpose) a thing said or done so if a defendant is at fault in causing the victim to
use violence, then the defence is not available R v Bowyer
Section 54(1)(c) A persons of defendants sex or age with normal degree of
tolerance in the circumstances of defendant would have reacted in a similar
manner (Objective Test)
iii) Diminished Responsibility Section 52 of CJA 2009
 The defendant must establish that an abnormality of mental functioning produced
by a recognized mental disorder provides an explanation for the defendant's
behavior in order to rely on the defence provided in section 2, revised by section
52 of the CJA. The World Health Organization lists recognized mental illnesses,
such as depression, personality disorder, and battered women syndrome, among
others. Similarly, intoxication is not a medical condition under the R v Fenton
approach.
R v Golds The defendant's mental state should have a considerable influence on
his capacity to understand or exert self-control, according to the court of appeal.
 Involuntary Manslaughter (No MR required only an unlawful act is required)
i. Constructive Manslaughter
When someone dies as a result of an unlawful conduct, but there is little or no
proof that the defendant intended to kill or seriously injure someone, the
defendant lacks the 'Mens Rea' for murder, which includes three elements
1)There must be an unlawful act
R v Franklin (When the defendant tossed a box into the water, it struck a
swimmer who died, it was determined that constructive manslaughter requires an
unlawful conduct that constitutes a criminal act, which was lacking in this case)
R v Goodfellow (The defendant set fire to his house, killing his wife, son, and
girlfriend as a result of the fire. As a result, the manslaughter conviction was
upheld, as there was an unlawful conduct and there is no requirement for the
unlawful act to be directed towards the victim)
2)The Unlawful Act must be Dangerous
In the case of R v Church, Edmound Davis provided a definition of dangerous
that was based on what a "reasonable man" would consider to be harmful.
R v Dawson (Defendant pointed gun at victim, who died of a heart attack as a
result of his actions. His conviction was overturned because the judge failed to
make it clear to the jury that it could only convict if pointing the gun was
objectively dangerous, which it would be if the defendant knew the victim had a
heart condition)
R v Watson (Defendant robbed a 87 year old victim who died of heart attack the
court of appeal, following on the reasoning in R v Church, ruled the defendant's
encounter with the victim was objectively harmful as soon as he realized the
victim was elderly and vulnerable)
3)The Unlawful Dangerous Act must cause death
ii. The death would not have occurred if defendants act had not occurred, and
defendants conduct was the main and major cause of victim's death, and it will
not be if another cause intervenes and overpowers defendants initial act.
iii. Gross Negligent Manslaughter
3 Requirements under R v Adomako
a) Duty of care
 Special relationship, Contractual Relationship, Informal Assumption,
creating a Dangerous situation but decided by judges and jury is to decide
that the duty was breached, and death occurred because of that breach
b) Breach of Duty
c) Death as a result of breach of duty
The case of R v Adomako was confirmed by AG reference no 2 and there
is no requirement of Mensrea