Criminal | Offences Against The Person
Murder: Mens Rea
Revision Note | A Level
Download
bitsoflaw.orgbits of law
Definition
- murder is an example of unlawful homicide and a common law offence
- Sir Edward Coke:
.. the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied...
- actus reus is described by the first part and mens rea by the second
- mens rea has one element: malice aforethought, which can be express or implied
Malice aforethought
- Sir Edward Coke requires one element to be satisfied: malice aforethought
- case law has developed the meaning of mens rea
- no requirement for malice to be present
Gray (1965)
- D gave V, their child, a fatal overdose, because V was suffering a severely painful terminal illness
- aforethought does not require thinking or planning beforehand, only that intention does not form after the act
Intention
- mens rea of unlawful killing is satisfied by intention to kill
- or cause grievous bodily harm
Vickers (1957)
- D broke into shop cellar and viciously attacked V, elderly female owner , V died from her injuries
- held intention to inflict serious bodily harm was sufficient to impose liability for murder
Cunningham (1981)
- D hit V over the head with a stool, V died from head injuries
- House of Lords held intention to cause really serious harm was sufficient for murder
- express intention is straightforward, D shots V aiming to kill him
- implied intention applies if D acting to cause serious harm which results in death
Foresight of consequences
- when D’s main aim is not to kill or cause serious injury, known as oblique intention
- brings into question D’s foresight
- how far can intention to kill or cause serious injury be inferred from D foreseeing such consequences
S8 A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,-
S8(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; butS8(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances
- D had been drinking with V, his stepfather
- for a laugh challenged one another to see who was the fastest to load a gun, D won and pulled the trigger, killing V
- D argued he had no intention to injury V, they were playing a game, D convicted of murder
- House of Lords reduced to manslaughter, mere foresight of probable death was not sufficient for intention, although it could be used to
infer
intention by the jury - the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it was foreseen, if it was foreseen the more likely it was intended
Hancock and Shankland (1986)
- Ds were miners on strike, to stop others from going to work Ds pushed concrete block from a bridge onto the road, V a taxi driver, was driving a worker to the mine, block hit his vehicle, V died
- Ds argued they only intended to block road, Ds were convicted of murder
- House of Lords substituted for manslaughter, held the degree of probability of death or injury was of paramount importance
- juries should ask whether consequence from D’s act was a virtual certainty
- if D foresaw was a virtual certainty, then can reasonably
infer
that D intended consequenceNedrick (1986)
- D poured paraffin through a woman’s letterbox and set alight, D intended to frighten her, V her child, died in the fire
- jury found D guilty of murder, Court of Appeal changed to manslaughter
- Lord Lane:
.. The jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case...
- juries should ask whether consequence from D’s act was a virtual certainty
- if D foresaw was a virtual certainty, then can reasonably
find
that D intended consequenceWoolin (1998)
- D feeding V his 3 month old son, V choked, D lost his temper and threw V towards his pram, V hit the wall and suffered fatal head injuries, D did not have direct intention
- House of Lords approved Nedrick (1986) provided the word
find
was used instead ofinfer
- foresight of consequences like a rule of evidence, from which jury may choose whether necessary intention exists
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
- Ds pushed V into a river from a bridge, knowing he could not swim, Ds watched V head towards the bank but did not stay to see if he got out, V drowned
- Court of Appeal held whether foresight of consequences was sufficient for intention matter for jury to decide
Criminal Justice Act 1967
Moloney (1985)
Summary
- person commits murder when he kills another with necessary intent
- intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm is required
- foresight of consequences may be used, like evidence, by the jury to infer intent