You are on page 1of 15

Murder - Actus Reus Homicide

The Law Bank


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

15

You might also like