1. Before we start
This year is highly important and to be successful in law you are going to have to work hard.
There are a few things you can do in order to achieve success. The questions you will be
asked will require very similar responses within a specific area. Good preparation will make
the exam seem easier and if you have completed lots of past papers with model answers
which you have taken time to put together then you will do well.
You need to know your cases. I will be doing lots of work in class in order for you to
remember these. You will be sick of me asking what happened in the case of Stone and
Dobinson. Anyone know?
Every week you will be given at least one piece of homework from me, this need to be done
and you should spend a minimum of 2 hours on this homework and extended research
around the area I am teaching. The areas that I will be teaching you this year are as follows:
Murder
Attempts
Voluntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter
Defences
Mr Sharpe will be teaching you all other areas including the areas of Actus Reus and Mens
Rea which we looked at in detail last term.
Murder
In the space below write down Lord Coke’s seventeenth century definition of murder. Make
sure you remember this as you will be tested at the end of the lesson and subsequent
lessons.
Jurisdiction
Obviously a person can be charged with murder that the have committed in this country. But
murder is unusual in its jurisdiction as it also includes any murder in any country by a British
2. citizen. This means that if the defendant is a British citizen, he may be tried in an English court
for a murder he is alleged to have committed in another country
Actus Reus of murder
There must be an unlawful killing and not one, for instance, in self defence. The killing must
be of a living human being and not, for instance, an unborn child. The killing must not be of
an enemy at a time of war.
The Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996 abolished the common law rule that the
victim must die within a year and a day of the injury. However, consent of the Attorney
General is required before prosecuting a person where (a) more than three years have lapsed,
or (b) the person has already been convicted of another offence in circumstances connected
to the death (eg, maliciously wounding or inflicting GBH).
‘Killed’
The actus reus of killing can be done by an act or by an omission, but it must cause the death
of the victim. Usually in murder cases, the actus reus is an act. However in some cases it can
be as a result of an omission. This was so in the case of Gibbins and Proctor 1918. Note down
in the box below what happened in this case.
Causation
The next part of the lesson in on causation. Using pages 12-19 makes some notes in the
space below on causation to refresh your memory.
As murder is a result crime, the prosecution must establish causation. There are two types.
First of all, factual causation and secondly legal causation. Murder is the result of a crime. The
defendant cannot be guilt unless his act or omission caused the death. In most cases there is
no problem with this. For example. D shoots V in the head, D is found guilty.
3. However in some cases there may be other causes of death such as poor medical treatment.
This type of situation raises questions of causation.
‘Reasonable creature in being’
This phrase basically means human being. So, for a
murder, a person must be killed. This may seem straight
forward, unless:
Is a foetus in the womb a ‘reasonable creature in
being?
Is a victim still considered to be alive if they are
‘brain dead’ but being kept alive by a support
machine?
Foetus
A homicide offence cannot be charged in respect of a
foetus. The child has to have an existence independent
of the mother in order to be considered a ‘creature in
being’. This means that it must have been expelled from
her body and have independent circulation. See the
Attorney-General’s reference (No3 1994) opposite, as
additional information. More detail on this case can be
found in the newspaper article on the following page.
Brain-dead
It is not certain whether a person who is brain-dead would be considered a ‘reasonable
creature in being’ or not. Doctors are allowed to switch off life support machines without
being held liable. It is possible that courts may decide that if someone switches off a life
support machine, not as a medical decision but intending to kill the victim, could be guilty of
murder.
Year and a day rule
Using your prior knowledge and research make notes in the box below to show your
understanding of the ‘year and a day’ rule.
4. Fatal attack on unborn child 'can be murder case'
Saturday,25 November 1995
A man who stabbed his pregnant girlfriend, ultimately causing the death of their baby daughter, could
have been tried for murder, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, ruled yesterday.
The Attorney General, Sir Nicholas Lyell, had asked judges in the Court of Appeal to rule in a test
case that the man had committed either murder or manslaughter. However, Lord Taylor immediately
allowed yesterday's ruling to go to the House of Lords because of its importance to the law.
He emphasised that his decision would not have any implications for doctors carrying out abortions.
Simon Hawksworth QC had argued at the hearing that no offence could be committed against a child
who, at the time of the attack which later caused its death, was as yet unborn and therefore not legally
recognised as "a person in being".
He warned the appeal judges that to uphold the Attorney General's case would "open up a very
difficult area" in relation to late abortions and the delivery of live foetuses which are then allowed to
die.
But Lord Taylor, sitting in the Court of Appeal with Mr Justice Kay and Mrs Justice Steel, said in his
judgment: "A doctor who carries out an abortion in accordance with the Abortion Act 1967 is not
acting unlawfully and hence, were such a doctor to be charged with murder, the charge would fail
because the element that the act must be unlawful could not be made out."
The woman victim was stabbed during a drunken row and gave birth three months prematurely. Her
baby, which bore a stab wound in her abdomen, died four months later.
Two years ago, her boyfriend was acquitted of murdering the child on the directions of a judge at
Leeds Crown Court.
The man, sentenced to four years in jail for wounding the woman, has not been named at the Court of
Appeal and yesterday's ruling cannot affect his acquittal on the murder charge.
However, a new point of law has been formulated which will mean that anyone causing unlawful
injury to a foetus or a pregnant woman which eventually causes the death of the child may face
manslaughter or murder charges.
In their conclusions yesterday, the judges ruled: "Murder or manslaughter can be committed where
unlawful injury is deliberately inflicted either to a child in utero or to a mother carrying a child in
utero.
"The requisite intent to be proved in the case of murder is an intention to kill or cause really serious
bodily injury to the mother, the foetus before birth being viewed as an integral part of the mother."
Lord Taylor allowed the case to be referred to the House of Lords after Andrew Lees, junior counsel
for the man in the Leeds trial, said the judgment was "a matter of great public importance with far
reaching consequences.
"It does widen protection to the unborn child, not only to charges of murder and manslaughter but to
charges of unlawful violence. It should be decided by the House of Lords because it is a redirection of
law."
5. ‘Queen’s Peace’
‘Under the Queen’s peace’ means that the killing of an enemy in the course of a war is not
murder. However, the killing of a prisoner of war would be sufficient for the actus reus of
murder.
‘Unlawful’
the killing must be unlawful. In the box below list down some of the reasons why the killing
of another may be deemed as not unlawful and therefore could not be found guilty of
murder.
An interesting case in which the killing of one person was thought to be justified is Re A
(children) (Conjoined Twins) (2000).
Reasonable Force
In deciding whether the force used was reasonable, the fact the defendant had only done
what he honestly though and instinctively thought was necessary in a moment of unexpected
anguish is very strong evidence that the defensive action taken was reasonable.
In looking at the circumstances, the defendant must be judged on the facts as he genuinely
believed them to be. This is so, even if the defendant was mistaken about the true facts. This
rule is illustrated by Beckford (1988).
6. Excessive Force
The amount of force used to defend oneself or
another must be reasonable in the
circumstances. If excessive force is used the
defence will fail as shown by the case of Clegg
(1995)
In 1999 the case was quashed due to new
forensic evidence casting doubt on whether the
fatal shot had actually been fired by Clegg.
Another case in which it was deemed that the
level of force used was not reasonable was
Martin (Anthony( (2002).
So the rules on when use of force can justify the defendant’s actions are as follows:
The defences of self defence of another/prevention of crime are defences which justify
D’s actions so that he is held not to have acted unlawfully
The force used must be reasonable in the circumstances
The circumstances include what D genuinly believed to be the situation. This is so even
if that belief was mistaken or unreasonable, provided the jury accepts that D genuinly
believed it.
However, a personality disorder which affects D’s perceptions of the situation cannot
be taken into account.
7. The amount of force must not be excessive in the circumstances as D believed them to
be.
1…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
9. Profile: UK serial killers
As the bodies of five dead women are found in Ipswich, Suffolk, within two weeks,
fears are growing that a serial killer is on the loose.
How does this compare to past serial killers in the UK?
PETER SUTCLIFFE: THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER
Through the late 1970s and early 80s, women in the north of England feared a killer known both
as the Yorkshire Ripper and Wearside Jack.
The killer, who it later emerged was a Bradford man called Peter
Sutcliffe, is serving life for the murders of 13 women in West
Yorkshire between 1975 and 1981.
Sutcliffe, now 60, also carried out attacks on seven other women
during that period.
It is not known what sparked his attacks.
Sutcliffe, who struck in Yorkshire and Manchester, claimed at his
trial that he had heard "voices from God" telling him to go on a
mission to rid the streets of prostitutes.
The case only came to the attention of the national press in June 1977 when Sutcliffe claimed the
life of Jayne MacDonald, a 16-year-old shop assistant who was not a prostitute.
The killings put a great deal of pressure on the West Yorkshire Police murder team.
However, the inquiry was thrown off course after three letters and a tape were sent to the
investigation team by a man who was to be nicknamed Wearside Jack due to his strong
Sunderland accent.
The man, whose actions disrupted the investigation, was later found to be a hoaxer.
Sutcliffe was sent to Parkhurst prison on the Isle of Wight, but was later transferred to
Broadmoor secure hospital in Berkshire in 1984 after a fellow inmate at Parkhurst jail slashed him
Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe was
jailed for life in 1981
10. with a broken coffee jar.
During his time in prison, Sutcliffe has been attacked a number of times.
In 1997, he was attacked by a fellow patient at Broadmoor, Ian Kay, who stabbed him in both
eyes with a pen. Sutcliffe lost the sight in his left eye as a result of the attack.
Sutcliffe remains at Broadmoor secure hospital.
FRED AND ROSE WEST
On New Year's Day 1995 Fred West took advantage of a break in his suicide watch to tie some
material to a prison door and hang himself at Winson Green prison in Birmingham.
He had been awaiting trial for 12 murders.
The deaths included those of his daughter Heather, 16, and eight-year-old stepdaughter
Charmaine.
Charmaine was murdered and buried under the ground floor of the house he shared with his wife,
Rose, 20 years before being discovered in 1994.
Nine bodies were found buried beneath the couple's house in
Cromwell Street, Gloucester.
Their victims were a mixture of hitch-hikers, lodgers and teenage
runaways who had been either lured to Cromwell Street or
abducted.
He and his wife sexually abused their victims before killing them.
In October 1995 Rose West was tried at Winchester Crown Court
for ten murders - the two others that her husband had been accused of pre-dated their
relationship.
She was found guilty on all ten counts by unanimous decision and was jailed for life.
The home secretary has since told her that she will never be allowed out.
There continues to be speculation that Fred West claimed more victims and buried them
somewhere in Gloucestershire.
HAROLD SHIPMAN
Britain's worst serial killer Harold Shipman was jailed in 2000 for killing 15 of his female patients.
However, a public inquiry later decided the 57-year-old doctor had killed at least 215 patients
over 23 years.
Shipman, who committed his crimes while working as a trusted family GP in Greater Manchester
and West Yorkshire, hanged himself using bedsheets in his prison cell in January 2004.
It means the true extent of his crimes may never be known.
Fred West killed himself in prison
11. During his three-month trial Shipman never admitted responsibility
for his crimes, nor hinted at a motive or expressed remorse.
Shipman's crimes first came to light in 1998 when he made a
clumsy attempt to forge the £386,000 will of one of his victims,
81-year-old Kathleen Grundy.
Her daughter Angela Woodruff became suspicious after her
mother's death and alerted police.
It soon became clear that the doctor entrusted to care for his
patients was in fact murdering them, mostly by injecting them with fatal doses of diamorphine.
Shipman preyed on vulnerable people, usually choosing women living alone as his victims, who
may have been elderly but were not seriously ill.
The killer jab was often administered on home visits.
His oldest victim was a 93-year-old woman and the youngest a 41-year-old man.
Shipman was given 15 life sentences in 2000 for murdering 15 patients by administering fatal
doses of diamorphine and also found guilty of forging Mrs Grundy's will.
But the public inquiry heard a fuller account of the number of victims who died at his hands.
Of the 215 victims, 171 were women and 44 were men.
IAN BRADY AND MYRA HINDLEY: THE MOORS MURDERERS
Ian Brady was jailed for life in 1966 after being convicted with his accomplice Myra Hindley of the
abduction and murder of children in the Manchester area.
Four of their five known victims were buried on Saddleworth Moor.
Glasgow-born Brady was a quiet, brooding stock clerk who admired the Nazis and was heavily
influenced by the writings of Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade.
In 1961, the firm where he worked, Millwards Merchandisers in
Manchester, recruited a new secretary, Myra Hindley. She
harboured a crush on Brady for a year until he finally responded.
As lovers she agreed to take part in a murder spree with him.
Hindley, who was 19 when she met Brady, always portrayed
herself as a gullible, easily-led and totally manipulated young
woman who fell under the spell of an evil man and simply went
along for the ride.
However, there is strong evidence to suggest that Hindley was far more than a passive
accomplice.
The killings began on 12 July 1963 when Hindley lured Pauline Reade into her car as the 16-year-
old walked to a dance at a railwaymen's club in Manchester.
She was then lured to Saddleworth Moor by Hindley. When they arrived they were met by Brady,
who had ridden there on his motorbike.
The teenager was then taken off to a remote spot either by Brady alone or by both of them, was
raped, beaten and stabbed before being buried.
Harold Shipman is considered to be the
UK's most prolific serial killer
Ian Brady and Myra Hindley became
known as the Moors Murderers
12. The couple repeated the process with other victims.
Each time they elaborated on the process, taking more time over it, drawing out the agony for
their victims.
In 1965 the couple made a fatal mistake when they invited a third person - Hindley's brother-in-
law, David Smith - to join their killing spree.
He witnessed Brady axing to death 17-year-old Edward Evans, a stranger who he had met earlier
that evening in a local pub, at the house the killer shared with Hindley.
Smith, who told the killers he would keep their secret, told the police.
He also told police the couple had bragged about having killed others and buried them on the
moors, prompting a search which led to the bodies of Lesley Ann Downey and John Kilbride being
recovered.
In 1966 they went on trial and were jailed for life with a recommended minimum tariff of 30
years.
Myra Hindley died in prison in November 2002 from a chest infection following a heart attack..
Brady was transferred from prison to a psychiatric hospital about 20 years ago, and has been
campaigning for the right to starve himself to death.
