Utilisateur
not unlawfully killing if one can plead self defence
Need existence independent of its mother
An unborn child is incapable of being killed. a child is only born when the whole body is brought into the world, but it is not sufficient that the child breathes in the progress of birth. a child must be killed after it has been fully delivered alive from the mothers body
D has attacked his girlfriend, who was 26 weeks pregnant at the time, he causes injury and harm to the girlfriend, this resulted in the baby being born prematurely who lived for a period of days then subsequently died. an intention to harm the girlfriend could not be transferred to the child death and this would involve a double transfer
both Ds stabbed the vicitims with the end result of them both ending up on end of life support, some time after the life machines were disconnectes as there was no chance of improvement. there was no evidence that the origional injuries stopped being the operative cause of death
the acceleartion of death with not change the guilty verdict.
he should do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain and suffering even if it means he incidentally shortens life
the court makes the distinction between giving medication for the relief of pain knowing that it will shorten life, and giving medication with the primary purpose of ending life
Doctors were not under a duty to continue treating or provide nutritional support as there was no hope of his recovering. Letting him die, an omission of a previous duty of care, would be no crime
we must underline that the law of murder does not distinguish between murder committed for malevolent reasons and murder motivated by familial love.
she suffered from a motor neurone disorder and she was unable to end her own life because of her physical disabilities
sought information on whether her husband would be prosecuted if he helped her travel to switzerland
mercy killings will still amount to murder
when the merely preparatory act comes to an end and D embarks on the crime properly
When a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion unlawfully killeth any creature in rerum natura under the King’s peace with malice aforethought A common law offence- sir edward coke
- A man of sound memory and of the age of discretion – so D is legally responsible for his actions
- Child below the age of 10 cannot be convicted of a criminal offence- s.50 Children and Young Persons Act 1933
Killing of enemy aliens during war and under battle conditions is not criminal homicide
Unlawfully causes the death of another person under the King’s peace
Beckford [1988] AC 130 – not unlawful killing if one can plead self defence
D must case death, factual and legal causation
needs existence independent of its mother, Enoch, Poulton
- Death due to injuries sustained while in womb may be Murder or Manslaughter
- AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245- transfered malice could not be used. they used the unlawful act dangerous manslaughter
brain dead is medical death in malcherek and steel
yes, Dyson
if the medical treatment has the purpose of restoration of health , he should do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain, even if this means shortening life, Adams
Doctors were not under a duty to continue treating or provide nutritional support as there was no hope of his recovering. Letting him die, an omission of a previous duty of care, would be no crime-Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316
killing an enemy during a war will not be murder
Inglis- law of murder does not distinguish between reasons
R v pretty, R v purdy- cannot encourage or assist suicide
nicklinson- mercy killings will still amount to murder
malice aforethought which means D unlawfully intented to kill another or cause serious GBH to another.
direct intention= ones aim or purpose
indirect/oblique intent- apply the woolin virtual certainty test
intent to cause GBH
R v Vickers
R v cunningham
DDP v smith
for attempted murder D must intend to kill whybrow an intention to cause GBH is insufficient for attempted murder
under s1(1) criminal attempts act- D must do an act which is more than merely prepatory
R v fullefer, R v Jones (keneth)