Homicide - Murder Actus Reus 1 Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank Starter Read the news article supplied:
1. On your hand held devices research the following cases: Adams (1957), Cox (1992), Airedale National Health Trust v Bland (1993), Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust v S (1994) and re A (children) (2000) 2. Is this similar to the de minimus rule discussed in Adams? 3. Do Lukes parents have a case against Alder Hey if so why?
2
Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank Objectives Identify the actus reus of murder
Explain cases that illustrate the actus reus of murder
Explain the rules and issues with respect to causation and murder
3 Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank Unlawful Killing 4 Some killings may be lawful Pte Lee Clegg 1. Authorised by War 2. Administering Pain Relief Dr Bodkin- Adams What does Devlin Say about pain relief in Bodkin-Adams? But what does Clegg tell us about this lawfulness? 3. Withdrawal of Treatment Anthony Bland Who applied for Anthony to be able to die? 4. Necessity, Self Defence, PoC Mrs Attard (re A (2001) Why did the court decide to allow one of these twins to die? Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank Omissions 5 Most cases will present no problems
But death may be as a result of an omission or failure to act
If D has duty to the other person then actus reus may be present
Most cases of homicide by omission have resulted in manslaughter convictions
One clear reported case however, is a familiar one:
R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) Why was the mens rea element of this case withholding food with intent to cause GBH and why do you think this was important?
Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank 6 R v Gibbins & Proctor [1918] 13 Crim App Rep 184 D and his common law wife failed to feed the man's 7 year-old child, Nelly, and she died from starvation. The woman hated Nelly, and was clearly the moving force.
Held Where there is the duty to act, failure to do so can lead to liability even for murder if the necessary mens rea is present. The woman was held to be liable because, while the child was not hers, she was living with the man and had accepted his money for food. The courts regarded the parent's duty towards a young child as so self-evident as not to require analysis or authority. Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank In rerum natura what? 7 1. When is a human being not a human being?
2. Can you think of the to occasions when this is not so?
3. Can you think of any groups these two definitions might offend?
4. Why do you think this is a legal definition and not a moral or medical one?
Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank A reasonable creature in being 8 Foetuses and brain dead at two extremes
Foetus only in being when expelled from mothers body, and has an independent existence.
No decision yet on if the foetus is still attached to the umbilical cord
But what happens if the foetus is injured inside, survives until born then dies? AGs Reference (No. 3 of 1994) (1997) What is the verdict likely to be in cases like this though?
Why?
Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank 9 Attorney-General's Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936 D stabbed child's mother whilst pregnant. Child lived for only 121 days. Her premature birth was caused by the injuries that her mother received when the defendant stabbed her. On his own admission D intended to cause the woman grievous bodily harm. So the mens rea for murder was present, if the death of the mother had been the result of his act:
Held: Where a child is born alive, and dies later from injuries inflicted while in utero. - Murder No - Manslaughter - Yes. If the child dies because of injury to the mother rather than injury to the foetus Murder No - Manslaughter No
D could be guilty of manslaughter, but not murder (no intent towards the child).
Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank A reasonable creature in being 10 A person ceases to be a human being when their brain stem ceases to be active irrespective of whether they are being kept alive by artificial means.
In these instances doctors can switch off life support machines.
If do they are not liable.
But what about serious disability/illness? Malcherek and Steel (1981) R v Inglis (2011) Click on the picture or name to take you to the news story. Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank 11 R v Malcherek & Steel, [1981] 2 All ER Two separate appeals were heard together. In Malcherek the defendant had stabbed his wife. In Steel the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting and beating a woman over the head with a stone. In both cases the victims had been taken to hospital and placed on life support machines. The doctors in the respective cases later switched off the life support machines as both victims were not showing any activity in their brain stem. The defendants sought to argue that the doctors' actions constituted a novus actus interveniens which broke the chain of causation.
Held - Convictions upheld
The test of death is where the brain stem has died. Thus at the time of switching off the machine, the victims were already dead. The doctors could not therefore be the cause of death. Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank 12 R v Inglis [2011] 1 WLR 1110 Court of Appeal The appellant appealed against her conviction for murdering her son Thomas. Thomas had suffered serious head injuries when he had fallen out of an ambulance. He had undergone lifesaving surgery which removed part of his skull which resulted in severe head and facial disfigurement. He was in a vegetative state but doctors were hopeful that he would make a recovery. The appellant, however, was convinced that his vegetative state was permanent. She became obsessive and believed he was in pain and wanted to end his suffering. She injected him with a lethal dose of heroin with the intention to kill. She appealed against her conviction.
Held - Her conviction was upheld. the law does not recognise the concept implicit in the defence statement that Thomas Inglis was "already dead in all but a small physical degree". The fact is that he was alive, a person in being. However brief the time left for him, that life could not lawfully be extinguished. Similarly, however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person. Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank Causation 13 1. Covered extensively in lesson on causation 2. Need to prove direct and unbroken link between Ds act and criminal consequence 3. Factual and legal causation required 4. Factual death would not have happened but for conduct of D 5. Legal operating and substantial cause 6. If chain of causation broken no liability for homicide
Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank Plenary 14 Arnold and Bert are steeplejacks. High up on a factory chimney, Bert pulls out a gun, points it at Arnold, and says that he is going to kill him for having an affair with his wife. Arnold lunges at Bert to knock the gun from his hand, and in doing so causes Bert to fall backwards off the scaffolding to his death .
Cheryl has agreed to look after her aged uncle Dennis. He is dependent on various prescription drugs, but Cheryl, tired of the responsibility towards him, deliberately fails to get them for him. As a result of this, he dies.
Eric, during the course of an argument, stabs his pregnant girlfriend. She recovers, but gives birth to their child prematurely. As a result of the premature birth, the child dies shortly afterwards.
Using only the material you have read so far in this chapter, do you think that the actus reus of murder is present in the following cases? Give reasons for your opinions. Murder - Actus Reus Homicide The Law Bank Objectives Identify the actus reus of murder
Explain cases that illustrate the actus reus of murder
Explain the rules and issues with respect to causation and murder