Law 03 NFO Murder

Pitwood - Murder requires an act or in some cases murder 

Attorney General's Ref No 3 1994 - A child being injured as a foetus and later dies can be a human being 

Malcherek - Doctors turning off a life support mavhine of a brain dead V doesnt constitute a 'creature in being' 

Dr Bodkin - Death caused by a doctor relieving pain will not necessarily lead to murder charge 

Not lawfulness - If deat was'nt lawful either done in self-defence, prevention of a crime and/or unreasonable force 

Pagett - Supports the 'but for' test and therefore is the factual cause

White - Against the 'but for' test and cannot be liable 

Smith - If the defendant is the overwhemling cause of the harm they ar ethe legal cause 

Cheshire - Poor medical treatment will not break causation if D significantly contributed to the death 

Malcherek - Turning off life support doesnt break causation 

Roberts - Forseeable intervening acts will not break the causation 

Williams - Unreasonable acts will break causation 

Cato - If D suplies/injects V with drugs there is no break in caustaion 

Kennedy - Self-injection of drugs does break causation 

Blaue - Particular weaknesses in the V will not break causation (Think Skull Rule) 

Mohan - Intention is the decsion to cause death or serious harm

Vickers - Court of Appeal determined intent to cause GBH is enough for the mens rea of murder

Woolin - If the ations of the defendant were virtually certain to bring about the consequences and the D appricaited this then indirect intention is satisfied 

R v Matthews and Alleyne - Foresight of virtually certain consequences is evidence of intent (not intent itself) 

Latimer - No name to mens rea, D does'nt need to hit the V intending to 

Fagan - Continuing act AR before MR 

Thabo Meli - Series of events MR before AR