Homicide

A quiz on the elements of Homicide ie. Murder and Manslaughter

?
  • Created by: Natsi
  • Created on: 28-05-09 16:53
The actus rea for murder is:
Both
1 of 8
The mens rea for murder is defined a 'mallice afterthought', this is:
Specific intent
2 of 8
To be convicted of murder, the defendant must have the intention to:
Kill or cause GBH
3 of 8
Intent can be either direct or oblique, an example of oblique intent satisfied the mens rea for murder is:
R v Nedrick
4 of 8
This case stated that for oblique intention to satisfy the mens rea for murder it must be...that death will result
A natural consquence
5 of 8
The AG reference 1994 stated that the death of a foetus would not satsify the actus rea for murder, and
if the foetus is born and dies as a result of the injuries inflicted from the defendant, the defendant is liable
6 of 8
These defences will cause:
A lower charge - voluntary manslaughter
7 of 8
The defence defined in s.3 of the Homicide Act allows the court to take into account
Only the age, sex and mental illnesses
8 of 8

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

The mens rea for murder is defined a 'mallice afterthought', this is:

Back

Specific intent

Card 3

Front

To be convicted of murder, the defendant must have the intention to:

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Intent can be either direct or oblique, an example of oblique intent satisfied the mens rea for murder is:

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

This case stated that for oblique intention to satisfy the mens rea for murder it must be...that death will result

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

Zoey

Report

this quiz lies big time, its not good

Stephen Gent

Report

An omission is not sufficient for the actus reus of murder!!!!

The leading case for oblique intention is R v Woollin, R v Nedrick came 13 years before, and even then the principle from Nedrick is virtually certain consequences not a natural consequence. 

AG reference 1994 determined that a foetus is not a person in being so the defendant would NOTbe liable if the foetus died as a result of the injuries caused by the defendant

Lauren Hannah Lexi

Report

Sorry kid but omission is sufficient for murder in certain circumstances, see R v Gibbins and Proctor, although this is a recent development. Murder requires the unlawful killing of a Reasonable Person in Being...etc. it says nothing about an act! If you intentionally starve a child who cannot feed themselves, then this is intention to kill, and so also satisfies the MR! You seriously think the law would let child killers who starve their children (omission to feed) to get away with it? I don't think so! Another case was on the news not so long ago as well actually! Use google before criticising people's hard work! 

Apart from that I agree with you! Except Woollin and Nedrick go together to discuss virtual certainty. Although Woollin is more recent I would say Nedrick was just as valid regarding discussing virtual certainty. 

However, this quiz is obviously out of date because the Homicide Act, particularly s.3 was repealed in 2009 and replaced with s.54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act! And so there are bound to be differences in the law then and the law you have learned now! 

CHILL OUT :) 

steve

Report

Apart from some obvious spelling mistakes, there are also some mistakes of fact. Very unhelpful!

Kayleigh

Report

reasonable... :) yeahh a little out of date but hey ho, i found it quite helpful -but, could be updated like the critics have stated ;)

thank youu... **

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »