Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
  • Save
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply



A2 Law

A2 Law

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Murder In Pictures
  • 2. Define the offence of murder
  • 3. AR 1: ‘unlawful killing’AR 2: ‘reasonable creature in being’ –A-G’s Ref (no 3 of 1994) 1997 HL
  • 4. MR: Explain the phrase ‘maliceaforethought’ as intention to kill ordo serious harm
  • 5. It is a crimes requiring proof ofintention and therefore a crime ofspecific intent
  • 6. Explain the developments that haveoccurred explaining the concept ofoblique intent
  • 7. Define ‘express malice’ and ‘implied malice’
  • 8. Refer to different aspects of intention –direct/oblique, but being clear it remains a subjectiveconcept
  • 9. Foresight of intention is not the same as intention but may beused in conjunction with S.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 –evidence from which intention may be inferred by the jury –Moloney; Nedrick; Woollin
  • 10. Make relevant reference to the special &partial defence of provocation in the context ofreform
  • 11. Refer to the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
  • 12. Refer to the Law Commission’s 2005 Consultation Paper
  • 13. Moloney: Foresight of consequences isevidence of intention
  • 14. Hancock & Shankland; The greater the probability of aconsequence the more likely it is that theconsequence was foreseen. If the consequence wasforeseen the more likely it was that it was intended.
  • 15. Nedrick; Jury not entitled to infer the necessaryintention unless death or serious injury was a virtualcertainty and the D appreciated this.
  • 16. Walker & Hayles; Reading Lord Scarman’s speech in Hancock and [reading]Nedrick we are not persuaded that it is only when death is a virtualcertainty that the jury can infer intention to kill. Providing the dividing linebetween intention and recklessness is never blurred, and provided it ismade clear ... that it is a question for the jury to infer from the degree ofprobability in the particular case whether the defendant intended to kill, wewould not regard the use of the words "very high degree of probability" asa misdirection.’
  • 17. Woollin: The jury, should be directed that they are entitled to find the necessaryintention if they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty - barring some unforeseen intervention - as a result of the defendant’s actions, and that the defendant realised such was the case, but should be reminded that thedecision is one for them on a consideration of all the evidence. Murder is a crime of specific intent. If for any reason (including self-induced intoxication) the killer does not form the necessary intent, he cannot be convicted of murder