The offence of Murder is a capital offence that is deemed to be one of the most grievous kind of Homicide. Murder is the most vindictive crime society can commit. It is considered as a serious crime in the world.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with the intention to kill or intention to cause grievous body harm. As seen in the case of Vickers (1957) and R v Woollin (1999). According to LCJ Coke 'Murder' is when a person of sound mind, and of legal age unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura(in the nature of things) under the king peace.
According to section 316 of the Nigeria Criminal Code defined Murder as death cause unlawful where the offender intends to cause death of another or grievous body harm.
For a person to be guilty of the offence of Murder, there must be proof that the defendant has the intention to kill or cause grievous body harm on the deceased. The actus reus and the men rea must be present.
The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing and human being. Thus the actus reus of murder require proof that the defendant unlawfully caused the death of the victim.
The unlawful killing means that the killing must not be lawful. The reason for this, is that if the killing is lawful(such as in self defence, if state ordered an executions etc), this would not constitute a murder. In the case of R V Dr Bodkins Adams (1957), shows that doctors may lawfully kill in limited circumstances , such as administering pain relief. In this case Bodkind was acquitted of murder. The unlawful killing can be committed by an act or omission.
The second element of the actus reus is 'human being'. This mean in other for this element to be satisfied, the victim must be a human being. The reason for this is that a foestus is not a person(human being) and there is no liability for murder nor do animals is classified as a human being. Therefore a person who kills a foestus cannot be charged with murder. In the case of AG Ref No3 of 1994(1997) All ER 936, it was held that appellants act would not amount to a murder because a foestus is not classed as a human being. Although in this case, the mother of the baby was attack unlawfully, which cause the baby death, as the child was born prematurely and died.
The killing must be a living human being. for example if a person is on a supporting machine and the person is not showing any response(activity) in their brain stem, and the doctor switched off the life supporting machine, the doctor may not be guilty of killing a human being. This was seen in the case of R V Malcherek & Steel (1981) 2 ALL ER, it was held by the court that, at the time the doctor switch off the machine, the victims were already dead. Thus the doctor couldn't be the cause of the death.
The mens rea of murder is the intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm. In R V Vickers (1957) 2 QB 664, John Willson Vickers(defendant), on April 14 (1957) broke into the cellar of a store with the intent to steal money. While in the cellar, Vickers encountered a woman who lived above the store, Miss Duckett. Vickers attacked Duckett and she died of injuries sustained in the attack. Vickers was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. But he appealed. On appeal, the appellant could be convicted of murder since it was established that he had intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm. This decision was confirmed in R V Cunningham(1982) AC 566 House of Lords.
The decision of Vickers shows that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient for murder, it does not have to be prove that the defendant had intention to kill. In R V Woollin (1999) AC 82, HL, The appellant threw his three(3) months old baby son on to a hard surface. The baby suffered a fractured skill and died. The house of lords held that murder conviction was substituted with manslaughter conviction.
Foresight by the defendant that death or grievous bodily harm is virtually certain to result from the defendant's acts or omissions is evidence from which the required intention for murder can be found( R v Maloney 1985)).
Causation(factual and legal) is another key element that should be investigated when determining the liability of the accused . However this should be left to the jury to decide depending upon the facts that they are presented with.
The factual causation is the first element to be looked at, focusing on the 'but for' test to see 'if but for the defendant's act the result would not have occurred. The case of R v White states that if the defendant act is not the actual cause of the death, the defendant cannot be liable. The case of R v Dalloway focuses on a situation where the defendant's act did not contribute to the resulting death.
The legal cause is applied in an offence of murder in order to consider liability. While focusing on Legal causation, it must be established that the act of the defendant contributed to the end result. The reason for this is that there should be no novus interveniens act, breaking the cause of causation. However the defendant maybe found guilty even where there is seen to be an intervenien act, as seen in the case of R v Smith, R v Malcherek and R v Steel.
The defendant may still be found guilty where the killing of Mr A(john) mistakenly kills Mr B(kingsley). This is the law under the doctrine of transferred malice.
The doctrine of transferred malice applies where the mens rea of the defendant(Oroma) offence can be transferred to another(Kingsley). For instance if Miss Oroma shoots at John intending to kill John, but misses and hits and kills Kingsley, Oroma would be guilty for the murder of Kingsley. The reason for this is that transferred malice operate so that the mens rea of Miss Oroma can be transferred to the killing of kingsley. Consequently Oroma is liable for the Murder of kingsley despite the fact that she did not actually intend to kill kingsley. This was seen in the case of R v Saunders (1573) 2 plowd 473, is a case where the defendant gave his wife an apple which he had poisoned with arsenic, he wanted to kill her so that he could marry another. The wife took a bite from the apple and then gave it to their daughter. The daughter died, the father(defendant) was liable for the murder of his daughter. The intention to kill his wife was transferred to the daughter. See also the case of R v Latimer(1886)17 QBD 359.
From the above argument, the jury must investigate whether the defendant had the required actus reus and mens rea present whilst carrying out his act. The actus reus and mens rea must coincide for there to be an offence. However if there is sufficient break in the chain of causation, it may relieve the defendant of any liability for murder.
No comments:
Post a Comment