Atika Ibrahim

1L
Criminal Law
Criminal Homicide
Murder Involuntary Manslaughter Voluntary Manslaughter
Unlawful killing of a human 1) Constructive R v Ahluwalia
being under the King’s peace, Manslaughter S54 of Coroners and Justice
with intention to kill or to cause It is also referred to as an Act 2009
grievous bodily harm. unlawful act, manslaughter it is (1) Where a person kills or is a
Voluntary Manslaughter defined as a type of involuntary party to the killing of another (v)
1) Loss of self control manslaughter where death occurs D is not to be convicted of
2) Diminished or death is caused by an unlawful murder if
Responsibility and dangerous act of the a) D’s acts or omissions in
defendant. In order to prove doing or being a party to
Lawful Killings constructive manslaughter 3 the killing resulted from
1. Self Defence authorised elements need to be proved: D’s Loss of self- control
by the law and accidental 1. There must be an b) The loss of self control had
killing all are considered unlawful act a qualifying trigger
lawful >R v Franklyn c) Of a person of D’s sex or
2. Accidents Facts: A box accidentally fell age, with a normal degree
3. Allowed by State from a big ship to a smaller ship of tolerance of
below on a person and the person self-restraint in the
1) AR Unlawful killings dies circumstances of the D
- KIlling which is done in Held: The court held that The might have reacted in the
the absence of a defence unlawful act must be criminal same or similar way to D
is considered an unlawful wrong not a civil wrong so the
killing defendant cannot be held liable. S55 of CJA 2009.
> R v Nicholinson, Acts >R v lamb Meaning of QT
designed to kill in which due kill Held: all the elements of the (3) This subsection applies if D’s
constitutes murder or unlawful unlawful act must be present and loss of self control was
killing if there is no unlawful act, there attributable to D’s fear of
2) Mercy Killings and can be no conviction for violence. A/G or D or any other
Euthenasia are constructive manslaughter. identifiable person
considered unlawful under > R v Lowe (4) Things said or done which
the UK law Held: There must be an unlawful (a) Created circumstances
act, omissions will not suffice. of extremely grave
> R v Malcherak: Stabbed his 2. The unlawful act must character of
wife in the abdomen, she was be dangerous (b) Caused the D to have
treated for the wound and a few > R v Church justifiable sense of being
days later she collapsed in the The unlawful act must be such seriously wronged
hospital. She subsequently had that all sober and reasonable > R v Duffy
surgery to remove a blood clot people would inevitably The defence of loss of control is
during which her heart stopped recognise must subject the other a partial defence that may reduce
beating for 30 minutes before it person too, atleast, the risk of liability from murder to voluntary
was restarted by the doctors some harm resulting from, albeit manslaughter. It does not absolve
again. This period caused the not serious harm. the D of liability completely. In
victim to suffer irretrievable R v Carey & Ors order to prove loss of control, 3
brain damage and as a result she R v Ball elements need to be satisfied
was placed on life support. A Any knowledge of the defendant 1) Loss of Self Control
day later, they were including a mistaken belief > R v Duffy
disconnected as there was no cannot be amputated to the sober Facts: The appellant attacked and
chance of her condition and reasonable person killed her husband with a
improving 3. The unlawful and hammer and a hatchet whilst he
> R v Steel Attacked a girl and dangerous act must cause was sleeping in the bed. He had
caused her serious head injuries, death/causation Factual subjected her to violence
she was taken to the hospital and causation (but for test) R v throughout their marriage.
put on life support. Shortly White. Devilin Judge gave the classic
afterwards, it was concluded that Legal causation definition of loss of self control
her brain had stopped working (substantial and operative as “It is a sudden and temporary
and the machine was causation) R v Smith R v loss of self control rendering the
disconnected Cheshire accused so subject to passion as
2) Gross Negligence MS to make him or her for the
Ruling: The fact that the Gross negligence manslaughter moment a not the master of his or
treatment was in alignment with in the type of involuntary her mind”
medical opinion could not manslaughter where the Literally the defendant is unable
prevent the defendants having defendant owns the duty of care to control himself.
their guilt absorbed. There was to the victim, the D grossly These cases of Ahluwalia and
no evidence that the original breaches that duty of care Thornton, reaffirm the definition
injuries inflicted stopped being resulting in or causing death of of loss of control, given in the
the operative cause of death. On the victim. case of R v Duffy.
this basis it was held that both - S 54 (2) States that loss of
the defendants were liable for > R v Adomako self control need not be
murder Held: that four things need to be sudden
1) AR Human Being found before a liability for gross 2) Qualifying Triggers
(Independent circulation negligence manslaughter can be Under the old law of provocation,
and respiration) established that is virtually any act was capable of
> R v Poultor >R v Bateman being used as evidence of
The substance of criminal 1. Duty of care The duty provocation
homicide is the killing of a situations discussed 1) The introduction of
person in being. under omissions are qualifying triggers have
Held: “A child killed before relevant here narrowed the ambit of the
leaving the birth canal is not a >R v wacker 2002 new defence quite
human being for the purposes of Facts: In wacker the appellant dramatically under S55(3)
the law of homicide.” Complete was a lorry driver carrying 60 The first QT is the fear of
separation requires merely that chinese illegal immigrants from violence against the
no part of the child remains in netherlands to england the lorry defendant from the victim.
the birth canal. It does not had a concealed apartment in The bet example can be
require the umbilical cord to be which the people were placed in. seen in the case of R v
severed, the foetus will become Once they were inside they were Ahluwalia where it was
a living person if born alive. sealed in. The lorry was a held that Kiranjeet
This requires that the child is refrigerated lorry which meant Ahluwalia feared serious
capable of breathing and there was no ventilation and violence from the victim
maintaining an independent there was one air vent. The when he said that he wasn't
circulation victims were told that if the vent done and would continue
> R v Crutchley was shut they should be silent to to beat her the next day
Held: As long is the umbilical avoid detection. The appellant 2) S54(4) Revenge killing
cord is connected to the mother, shut the vent for 10 mins before not allowed
the baby is not a human being boarding the ferry. He did not > R v Abraham’s v Gregory
for the purposes of murder reopen it and the lorry was on 3) S55(4) states that where
AG’s Reference case number 3 the ferry for 10 hours; this meant defendant’s loss of self
of 1994 that the single air vent on the control was attributable
Facts: D stabbed his pregnant lorry was closed for 10 hours. to a thing or things said
GF who prematurely gave birth Consequently 58 people were or done which
to S, S was wounded in the suffocated to death and the a) Constituted
stabbing and died after 121 days appellant was convicted of gross circumstances of
of being born. D was charged negligence manslaughter. extremely grave
with murder of S but was Held: The court held that he character and
acquitted after it was held that owed a duty of care to all the b) gave the defendant a
he could not be convicted of illegal immigrants in his lorry justifiable sense of being
murder or manslaughter as the and thus his conviction was seriously wrong.
child was not born at the time of upheld.
stabbing. Moreover, the doctrine 2. Breach of duty which the > R v Hatter
of transferred malice was also defendant owes to the Facts: Mark Hatter developed a
not applicable as when stabbing victims. This breach is rs with a girl, she was younger
occurred, the baby could not be assessed objectively. than him, he was very generous
regarded as a human being. Objective test requires to her and her children, Hatter
It was held by the AG that D the jury to ask how a had never had children of his
could be convicted of reasonable person would own and the girl promised to
constructive manslaughter have acted in the have her sterilisation reversed.
>R v Bland situation and did the The rs later phased out and she
Bland was injured in the defendant's conduct fall started seeing another man
Hillsborough disaster when he below how a reasonable although she never told the
was 17 and a half years old and person would have acted. defendant it was over. He went to
was left in a persistent >R v Rose her house at midnight and
vegetative state. He remained in Held: in the case of rose an climbed through an upstairs
this state for over two years with optometrist failed to use the window. He claimed that he had
no sign of improvement whilst correct scans of the victims eye taken the knife to lift the carpet
being kept by life support and the victim died. From an with a knife and had accidentally
machines, Bland could not otherwise treatable condition. stabbed her in the chest and wrist
breathe by himself and required The court prompted the jury to when he spun around whilst
feeding through a tube. The ask would a reasonable person holding the knife. He then
doctors that were treating Bland have foreseen a serious and stabbed himself in the chest but
were granted approval to remove obvious risk of death. In other he survived. The defendant
the tube that was feeding him. words it was confirmed that the claimed an accident at the trial
Doctors have a duty to act in the jury should apply a reasonable but this was rejected by the jury.
best interest of their parents but person test to consider what was Held: The trial judge held that the
this does not necessarily require foreseeable at the time that the loss of control could not be put to
them to prolong life on this defendant acted or omitted to act the jury as there was no evidence
basis. On this basis, it was held when they had a duty to act. that he had lost his control, the
that since there were no chances 3. Cause/causation Factual circumstances were not of an
of improvement, the doctors legal extremely grave character nor did
were allowed to remove the life 4. Grossly negligent he have a justifiable sense of
support machine >Seeon Broktal being seriously wrong
>R v Inglis >R v Misra
Facts: The appellant (mother) Held: it was held that gross > R v Bowyer
appealed against her conviction negligence must include a risk of Facts: The defendant Boyer and
for murder her son, Thomas. He death in the earlier case of the Victim Suller were both
had suffered serious head adomako definition of gross having a rs with a woman named
injuries and had undergone a negligence is quite circular Katie (a prostitute). Suller was a
lifesaving surgery which which says that the jury must pimp and the defendant was not
removed part of his skull which consider “ whether having regard aware that Katie was a prostitute.
resulted in severe head and to the risk of death involved, the On the night of the killing the
facial disfigurement, he was in a conduct… was so bad that in all defendant went to Suller’s house
vegetative state. The doctors the circumstances it amounted to to burgle him, Suller disturbed
were hopeful that he would a criminal act or omission.” the burglary and a fight started,
make a recovery, however the Suller then revealed that Katie
mother was convinced that her 3) Reckless Manslaughter was a prostitute and then taunted
son’s state was permanent, she him that she was her best earner,
became obsessive and believed Definition: Unintentional killing the defendant lost his control and
he was in pain and wanted to caused by reckless behavior, where plead the case under loss of self
the defendant disregards a
end his suffering. She injected control
substantial risk of death or serious
him with a lethal dose of heroin harm. Held: Sexual infidelity or
with the intention to kill. She unfaithfulness can never form the
was convicted of murder and she • Key Elements: ground for loss of self control
appealed against her conviction.
It was held by Lord CJ that • Unintentional killing: R v Clinton
mercy killings do amount to No intent to kill or cause grievous Facts: The appellant and his wife
murder harm. both suffered from depression for
>R v Page which they were on prescribed
• Recklessness:
When UK is at peace with medication, Clinton was
Awareness of risk but disregards it.
another country and a UK experiencing financial difficulties
National commits murder of a • Causation: and stress at work, he and his
national of that country, then the Defendant’s actions must directly wife agreed to a trial separation.
UK national may be liable for cause the death. The appellant did not cope well
murder and became obsessional and had
• Mental State (Mens been looking at suicide websites,
Mens Rea Rea): Recklessness (awareness of After 2 weeks, both of them met
risk and unjustifiable disregard).
1) Intention to Kill and his wife told him
2) Intention to cause • Physical Act (Actus 1) She had had sexual
Grievous bodily harm Reus): Unlawful, dangerous act relations with 5 men and
leading to death. was describing in graphic
details of her interactions.
• Sentencing: Lesser 2) She had laughed and
than murder, more severe than taunted him about the
involuntary manslaughter. suicide websites that he
Relevant Cases: had been looking at
3) She told him that she no
1. R v Cunningham longer wanted the children
(1957): Defined recklessness in Held: His loss of control was due
criminal law (conscious disregard to the abovementioned 3 factors
of risk). and the defence of loss of self
2. R v Adomako (1994):
control was available to him. It
Clarified difference between gross was stated by the judge that
negligence manslaughter and sexual infidelity on its own
recklessness. cannot be relied upon as a
qualifying trigger but its
3. R v Lidar (1999): existence does not prevent
Reckless driving causing death. reliance on a defence where there
exist other qualifying triggers.

> R v Doughty
> R v Davies

3) Objective Test
Degree of tolerance and self
restraint S54(1)(c)
- Is a question for the
jury to decide
- DPP v Camplin
 S54 CJA 2009

Loss of self control QT S55 CJA 2009 Objective Test

(ii) Fear of Violence
(iii) Things said or
done
Circumstances of
extremely grave
character
Justifiable sense of
being wronged