Fatal offences

?
  • Created by: beapeng
  • Created on: 10-10-17 11:57

D could be guilty of either the murder or manslaughter of V. 

PARAGRAPH 1:

For murder:

ACTUS REUS- guilty act

As V has died, is possible an offence of murder has been committed. 

Murder is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King's (or Queen's) peace with malice aforethought, express or implied. 

  • no issue with D having any defences= UNLAWFUL (consider potential defences, SELF DEFENCE, INSANITY, VOLUNTARILY INTOXICATION, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY AND LOSS OF CONTROL) 
  • No issue with the death at war = under the Queen's peace. 
  • As there is no issue witth D being able to live independently = reasonable creature in being. 

ONLY AREA OF ACTUS REUS STILL REMAINS TO BE PROVED = D KILLED V. = issue of causation 

  • Factual cause of death= but for test outlined in Pagett. ' but for D's actions, V would not have died' 
  • THEN APPLY TO THE CASE. 
  • legal cause of death= 'de minimis' principle, legal cause test set out in kimsey. 
  • D's actions need not be substantial but must be more than minimal. 
  • THEN APPLY TO THE CASE. 
  • Intervening acts=  break the chain of causation. no novus actus which broke the chain of causation. 
  • INTERVENING ACT= form of a natural event, victims own act, act of 3rd party/ God. 

medical treatment could break the chain of causation: 

NOT IF:

  • the original wounds were 'operating and substantial' SMITH

ONLY IF: 

  • medical treatment is so 'independant and potent'  CHESHIRE (still contributed significantly) 
  • wounds almost heald, treatment e.g. allergic medicine given JORDAN
  • APPLY…

Comments

No comments have yet been made