Criminal Law Study Guide Essay

Murder carries a authorization sentence of life imprisonment, which is 15 years. Sound memorythe person answerable must not be insane. Age of discretion a infant less than 10 years old is not criminally amenable for his/her enactmentions. Since S. 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 the presumption of doli incapax has been abolished and consequently some(prenominal) child over 10 years has potentially full heavy capacity. Unlawfully garbage downs the act must be an unlawful killing. The law recognises that in definite circumstances the killing may be either confirm or authorised eg. xecution or self defence. Living world existence a foetus is not deemed in law to be a living human being. However, a polish off conviction may be possible if a foetus is injured and, after birth, dies as a result of injuries sustained whilst in the womb. Attorney-Generals Reference (No 3, 1994) 1996. A suspect cannot be convicted of the kill of someone who is already dead at the m etre of the attack. R v Maicherek and Steel 1981 The accused had seriously wounded the dupe who was consequently artificially maintained on a respirator.When it was discovered that permanent brain damage had occurred the respirator was turned off M was shew guilty of murder and his petition was dismissed when he claimed the doctor had drived expiry. It was his act which caused stopping point. The court appeargond to favour the approach that decease occurs when the dupe is brain-dead. Queens Peace killing an enemy during wartime is not murder. Malice aforethought since the slip of R v Moloney the mens rea of murder is the tendency to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. ACTUS REUS The actus reus of murder is that the killing is unlawful, causation must be stablished (A caused Bs death) and the victim must be a human being. (see causation notes from AS). MENS REA DIAGRAM MENS REA The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought which is the sprightlinession to kill or cause gr ievous bodily harm (GBH). There are two forms of intent Direct intent this is what D desires, eg. pointing a triggerman at someone and shooting them because you want to kill them. It was their aim or purpose to kill. Indirect or oblique intent this is not inescapably what D desires but what he foresees will almost certainly happen, eg.D sets fire to a building and killed someone, did he foresee the jeopardize that death might occur? Four important cases must be looked at. R v Moloney 1985 A soldier shot and killed his stepfather in response to a drunken challenge. He claimed that he had not aimed the gun at the victim and had, at the time, no idea that firing it would cause inpanel. The judge tell the jury that intention included both desire and foresight of apparent consequences and the defendant was convicted of murder. Held (HL) magical spell allowed, manslaughter substituted.Lord Bridge did state that it was possible to consider a result which you do not actually wa nt. He gave the representative of a man who is trying to escape, who boards a plane to Manchester. Even though he may have no desire to go to Manchester he may even hate the place it is clearly where he intends to go. However, the appeal was allowed because foresight of consequences can further be tell of intention it is up to the jury to decide. R v Hancock and Shankland 1986 Two striking miners pushed cover from a bridge onto a road, killing a taxi driver.They claimed only to intend to block the road or frighten the taxi rider and not to kill or cause GBH. They were convicted of murder but successfully appealed, a manslaughter conviction was substituted by the salute of Appeal and confirmed by the House of Lords. The House of Lords looked at risk and probability. A s vindicated risk of death is not enough to infer intention Lord Scarman verbalise the greater the probability that death or GBH would occur the more in all probability that intention can be inferred, eg. if A cut Bs little finger is would not be very probable that death would occur, therefore A is unlikely to have intention.However, if A stabbed B in the chest, it is much more likely that death would result, therefore it is more likely that A had intention. In both cases the defendants were convicted by the juries and appealed, first to the Court of Appeal and then to the House of Lords. In each case the House of Lords quashed the convictions for murder and substituted a verdict of manslaughter. The reason being the trial judges had misdirected the jury. The spare-time activity case established the Virtual Certainty test which should always be used in indirect intention situations..R v Nedrick 1986 The defendant set fire to a house, killing a child. He claimed that his intention was to frighten the childs mother and not to kill or cause GBH. Convicted of murder. Held (CA) Appeal allowed, manslaughter substituted. Where direct intention is not present then the following test should be pu t to the jury. A jury should sink a verdict of murder only where they find that the defendant foresaw death or serious injury as a virtual certain consequence of his or her voluntary actions. R v Woolin 1998 (HL)D shake his 3-month-old son when he choked on his food and then threw him across the room, the child died, D had lied to the ambulance men and the police before admitting what happened. He claimed that he did not want his son to die. He was originally convicted of murder but the House of Lords reduced his conviction to manslaughter. The trial judge had misdirected the jury on the test to infer intention. The case has now confirmed the Nedrick test. It must now always be used when dealing with indirect intent situations. R v Matthew and Alleyne 2003 (CA)The defendants appealed against their conviction for murder following the death of a young man (a non-swimmer) whom they had thrown from a bridge into a river. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, which it did not co nsider unsafe in the light of the evidence, but expressed concern that the Nedrick/Woollin evidential rule should not be treated as if it were a rule of law. A defendants foresight of virtually certain death does not automatically enquire the jury to find that he intended that result it is merely evidence from which the jury may draw that conclusion.