Criminal -> Murder, Causation and Manslaughter

Murder defined as: The unlawful killing of another person in the Queens peace.
With an intention to cause death of grievous bodily harm to the victim a person convicted of murder must be given a sentence of life imprisonment.

Causation is an assumption that each person is responsible for his/her actions and that act caused a particular consequence i.e. in murder the actions of the accused caused the death of the victim. Has to be the factual cause of death as seen in R v White: defendant put poison into victims drink but victim suffered a heart attack after a few sips, but medical evidence suggested the heart attack was unrelated to the poison. The victim would have died in the same way had the defendant not put poison in his drink therefore this is NOT the factual cause of death.
You have to apply the ‘But for’ test to determine factual causation: But for the defendants act the result would not have occurred.
In order to establish legal causation:
Substantial cause. The defendants act must be a substantial cause of the result and not merely a slight or trifling link (Kimsey [1996]). A stabs B in the leg and then C shoots B. Medical evidence will show B died of the gun shot wound and not the stab wound.
Operating cause. The defendants act must be an operating cause of the result. A stabs B and then C shoots B dead. B’s shooting would break the chain of causation and A would no longer be responsible for B’s death but may still be liable for the stabbing. (R v Pagette; def used gf as a human shield and shot a police officer, who then fired back killing the gf. Pagette caused them to return fire there4 the legal cause of death.)

In the even of a break in the chain of causation (novus actus interveniens) where A injured B and then C inflicted further harm after which the victim died. Four different verdicts could be reached by the court:
(i) if the evidence indicates the victim died as a combination of both injuries, A & C both liable for B’s death.
(ii) It could be found that C’s act was a novus actus so A’s no longer said to have caused the death but C would (R v Cheshire).
(iii) If C’s act was of negligible effect then it may be found that A caused the death and not C.
(iv) It may also be found that neither of the acts caused the death, i.e. victim died of heart attack or something else unconnected with the injuries inflicted by A & C (R v White).

Intention equals the most blame-worth state of mind. Hyam v DPP suggested if a result is foreseen as likely then it is intended. However HoL made it clear that foresight of a consequence is not the same as intention therefore intention was the fault element rather than foresight in murder and therefore should be given its normal ordinary meaning (R v Moloney).

The Woollin directive on establishing defendants intention. Was it the result of the defendants purpose? If yes, then he obviously intended it. If not then, was the result a virtually certain result of his action and did the defendant realize that the result was virtually certain result of his actions? If yes then the jury are entitled to find he intended the result. If not he did not intend the result.
The Eggshell Skull rule (or thin-skull rule) holds an individual liable for all consequences resulting from their activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers unusual damages due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition. The general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victim as they find them".

Manslaughter is slightly less serious form of homicide than murder. There are two types of manslaughter:
(1) Voluntary manslaughter. These are killings which would be murder but for the existence of defined extenuating circumstances. Although they had the actus rea and mens rea he or she does not deserve the label ‘murderer’.
(2) Involuntary manslaughter. These are killings where the defendant does not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm but there’s sufficient fault to justify criminal liability.

Direct Intention. The defendant has direct intention to kill if it was his primary purpose to cause death.
Oblique Intention. Death is a virtually certain consequence of the attainment of the defendants primary purpose. (R v Woollin).

Express Malice: Intention to kill
Implied Malice: Intention to cause GBH.

HOMICIDE AND CAUSATION ANSWER STRUCTURE

1. Define factual (White) and legal (Cheshire) causation.
2. Consider whether factual causation is satisfied for all victims.
3. Deal with causation first for each victim i.e. was D’s act the significant and operative cause of V death.
4. Consider novus actus intervenes, was each link of causation reasonably foreseeable consequence of D’s original act. Any unforeseeable acts by 3^rd parties.
5. For each victim where causation is established, go on to consider whether its murder or manslaughter as the appropriate charge. Define Murder/UAM/GBH at this stage.
6. Murder or manslaughter will depend on Mens Rea of D. Don’t forget to apply Wollin where appropriate, nor forget to look at GNM as an alternative to UAM where appropriate.