Name:……………………….Murder Case Questions
R v Malcharek & Steel 1981
Facts
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. Both D’s were charged with murder. The defendants sought to argue that the doctors' actions constituted a novus actus interveniens which broke the chain of causation.
1.At what point does a person stop being a reasonable creature in being?
2.What could have been the effects of the court allowing switching the life support machine off as a break in causation? Give at least one benefit to future defendants and one problem for future doctors.
3.Thinking about the rules of causation give one argument as to why this ruling could be seen as very harsh on Malcharek?
4.What could be a fairer way of dealing with Steel if he only acted in the heat of the moment?
R v Martin 2002
Facts
Tony Martin lived alone on an isolated farm called Bleak House. The farm and surrounding buildings were dilapidated and appeared to be derelict. Consequently the farm was subject to numerous break-ins. On the night of Aug 20th 1999 Freddie Barras (aged 16) and Brendan Fearon (aged 30) broke into the farm. Tony Martin armed with a 12 bore shot gun went downstairs and fired indiscriminately at where he thought the disturbance came from. He shot both the intruders killing Barras by a gunshot wound to the back. At his trial his plea of self defence was rejected by the jury and he was convicted of murder. He appealed on the grounds that his personality disorder should be taken into account in assessing whether he had used reasonable force for the purposes of self defence.
1.According to this case when is defending yourself still an unlawful killing?
2.Give at least 2 reasons why Martin shouldn’t be convicted of murder
3.Give at least 2 reasons why Martin should be convicted of murder
4.Do you think the force used by Martin was excessive or reasonable? Explain your answer.
R v Beckford 1988 (Privy council case)
Facts
The appellant was a police officer. He was issued with a shot-gun and ammunition and sent with a number of other armed police officers to a house. According to the appellant a report had been received from Heather Barnes that her brother Chester Barnes was terrorising her mother with a gun. Heather Barnes, however, denied that she had made a telephone call to the police or that her brother was armed.
The appellant said that on arriving at the house, he saw a man run from the back door with an object which appeared to be a firearm. As the police followed him, the appellant stated that Barnes fired at the police; in response to this he fired back, shooting and killing Barnes. In fact no gun was ever found. The case is Jamaican where murder still carries the death penalty.
1.According to this case when is defending yourself a lawful killing?
2.What does the term Appellant mean? Who is the appellant in this case? What is the correct term for the other party to the case?
3.Look at the evidence objectively. What evidence cannot be taken into account when deciding Beckford is guilty of murder? Is this a lawful or unlawful killing?
4.Now look at the evidence subjectively. Does this make a difference as to whether or not is an unlawful killing? Explain your answer.
R v Vickers 1957
Facts
The defendant broke into cellar shop, where Miss Duckett, 73 lived upstairs, and the defendant intended on stealing money. Defendant attacked her when she discovered his presence, which caused her to fall down. She died as a result of shock due to general injuries. D was charged with murder.
1.Does D have an intention to kill beyond a doubt, based on the evidence?
2.Explain why D has a direct intention to cause GBH (S18).
3.Explain why the court held D had an implied intention to kill based on his intention to cause GBH?
4.Give a reason why this a fair approach to the meaning of malice aforethought?
5.Why could implied intention to kill be seen as unfair on D’s? Give one reason based on MR and one based on the rules of causation.
R v Nedrick 1986
Facts
The appellant held a grudge against Viola Foreshaw. He went to her house in the middle of the night poured paraffin through her letter box and set light to it. A child died in the fire. D was charged with murder.
1.Did D directly intend to kill the child? Explain your answer.
2.D can be found guilty of indirectly intending to kill the child as long as it can be proved D foresaw the death of the child when causing the fire. Give a reason why D could foresee death. Give a reason why he may not have foreseen the death of the child.
3.Below are Lord Lane’s instructions to the jury to help them manage the evidence in the case and decide whether they D could have foreseen the death of the child. Identify which is the objective and subjective element of the test. List the evidence under each part of the test. Do you believe D indirectly intended to kill using this test?
Lord Lane CJ:
"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 (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."