Murder (LAW03)

AR for murder: an acts which brings about the death

MR for murder: the intention to kill or intention to cause GBH (Vickers)

Definition for murder: the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature with malice aforethought, express or implied

Intention to kill: to bring about a specific aim, objective or consequence

Indirect intention (Nedrick):

• do they feel that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty of the D's actions; and
• did the D foresee that death or serious injury was virtal certainty of his actions?

To find intention (Woolin):

• be sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty of the D's actions
• the D appreictaes that death or serious injury was virtual certainty of the D's actions

To infer intention (Matthews and Alleyne):

• House of Lords confirmed that when death or serious injury is foreseeable it isnt enough for intention but it is enough to infer it

• Section 2 Homicide Act 1957 (before it was changed)
• Section 52 Coroner and Justice Act 2009 (nowadays)

Reduces manditory sentence to a discretionary sentence

Four Elements for DR:

• Abnormality of Mental Functioning (Byrne)
• Recgonised Medical Condition (approved by two medical experts or classified in the World Organisation Classification Book)
• Substantually Impairs (Egan)
• Provides an Explanation

Abnormality of MF: 'a mind so different from that of an ordinary person that the resonable man would deem it as such' (Byrne)

Recognised Medical Condition: Eplilepsy, PTSD, Postnatal Depression, Depression, Asperger's etc

Substantially Impairs: excerise self-control, understand the nature of D's conduct, to form a rational judgement (Egan)

Provides an explanation: the abnormality of MF provides an explanation for the D's act or omission

• when intoxication is implyed by the jury they must disregard the intoxication and decide whether the abnormality of MF on its own would substantially impairs D's ability
• Two questions must be asked which are: 
• 1) Was the syndrome such that it caused the D to suffer abnormailty of MF?, if so
• 2) Did the abnormality of MF substantially impair?

Wood: allowed to plead DR due to him having alcohol dependancy syndrome It must be that the syndrome is such a nature and extent that it constitued an abnormality of the mind

Tandy: jury must believe that the the D's relationship with the alcohol/drug goes further than the simple taking of the intoxicants and has in itself become a recognised medical condition 

Dietschmann and Gittens: jury must believe that even without the intoxicant the abnormality of mental functioning alone substanitally imparied the D's behaviour 

Section 54 and S55 of the Cornoers and Justice Act 2009 

Section 54:

• loss of self-control
• loss of self-control was triggered by one of the qualifying triggers
• Objective test: 'a person of D's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint would have reacted in a same or similar way to the D 

Section 55:

• D's loss of control was attributable to D's serious violence from V against D or another identifiable person
• was the D's loss of control attributable to a thing or things said or done which
• 1) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character 
• 2) caused the D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged 

Three elements:

• lost self-control and killed 
• Qualifying triggers
• Objective test