1. Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the
Queen’s peace with the required malice aforethought.
AcTuS reuS
Defendant must demonstrate the
required malice aforethought – the
intention to kill or cause really serious
harm. Intention has two types;
Direct
• Must have intended to kill or cause
grievous bodily harm
Indirect/Oblique
• Did not desire the outcome but in acting
as they did, realised it might occur as in
Maloney (intention and nothing less.)
• Nedrick was death or serious injury a
virtual certainty as a result of defendants
actions? Did the defendant foresee this
as in Woolin? If yes, the jury can infer
intent.
Defendant can only be liable for victims
death were their acts are both the factual
and legal cause of death;
Factual
• ‘But for’ test as in the case of Pagett.
(Boyfriend used her as human shield)
Legal
• Defendants actions must be the operative
and significant cause of death as in the
case of Smith. It is unlikely negligent
medical treatment would break the chain of
causation as in Cheshire.
• An intervening act that is reasonably
foreseeable will not break the chain of
causation such as Blaue – (Jehovah’s
witness, thin skull test) or where it did break
the chain of causation as in Williams –
(Daftness test, jumped out of moving car)
MenS reA

2. diMiniShed
reSponSibiliTy
Diminished responsibility is governed by S2 Homicide Act 1957. There are 4 ingredients;
1. Defendant must be suffering from an abnormality of mind as in the case of Byrne –
‘the state of mind is so different from that of the ordinary human being, that the
reasonable man would term it abnormal.
2. What was caused by;
- A disease or injury
- Any inherent cause
- A condition of arrested or retarded development of mind
Inherent causes refers to the external factors. A disease could also refer to
alcoholism as in the case of Tandy (involuntary first drink) or if they have being
treated in the past for the medical condition.
3. The abnormality of mind was a substantial cause of actions as in Deitschmann.
Was it a substantial cause or was it the drink? Need not have been the sole cause.
4. Defendant must have had substantially impaired mental responsibility for their
acts. It need not be total but must be considerable as in Byrne and Lloyd.

3. provocation
-Subjective
-Objective
Provocation is governed in S3 of the Homicide Act 1957
Subjective
• Defendant must have been provoked by things done/said into losing his self control.
Loss of control must be sudden and temporary and defendant must not have had
time to cool off as in Ibrams and Gregory
• Baille established all these issues are left for the jury to decide.
Objective
• The reasonable man must also have lost his self control and that such provocation
would have made a reasonable person act as the defendant did.
• Camplin says characteristics of defendant can be taken into account;
Characteristics
Gravity of Provocation Level of Self Control
Age, gender and other
characteristics
Age and gender only

4. insanity
When the defence of insanity is successful a special verdict will be given ‘not
guilty by reason of insanity’
Rules of insanity were laid down in M’Naghten.
1. Everyone is presumed sane, unless at the time of the crime they were suffering from,
2. A defect of reason caused by,
3. A disease of the mind so that the defendant didn’t know,
4. The nature and quality of the act or they did not know that it was legally wrong
1. Everyone is presumed sane unless they are suffering from
2. A defect of reason – being deprived of the power to reason, rather than
simply failing to use it, as in Clarke. The defect of reason can be temporary or
permanent as in Sullivan.
3. A disease of the mind – this is a legal definition. It means a malfunctioning of
the mind as in Kemp.
4. Defendant does not know the nature and quality of the act – meaning the
physical rather than the moral nature of the act – cutting a throat thinking it’s a
loaf of bread. Knowledge that the act was legally wrong – as in Windle.
‘not guilty by reason of insanity’

5. AUTOMATISM
Not voluntarily in control of bodily
movements caused by an external factor
Quick – took his insulin and ate little afterwards. His state was caused externally be
his insulin and not his diabetes which was internal. He was granted the defence of
automatism.
The defendant must show medical evidence.
In Bratty Lord Denning gave the defence two meanings;
1. The act is done by involuntary acts of muscles with no control over the mind, such
as spasms as set out in the cases of Baxter v Hill
2. The act is done by the person whom is not conscious of what he is doing, such as
sleepwalking.
There must be TOTAL LOSS of self control and not just partial as in Attorney General
Reference No2. Where defendant lost control of a car on the motorway due to being in
a trance. The court failed his defence because he was still partially in control.
The defence of automatism is not available if it was self induced such as drugs or
alcohol as in the case of Lipman (LSD.)

6. INTOXICATIO
N
Not capable of forming the mens rea
due to being too drunk/drugged.
Set out in the Majewsti Rules;
1. Defendant is so intoxicated that he cannot form the mens rea for the offence.
Kingston – “an intoxicated intent is still an intent”
2. Decide whether the offence is specific or basic intent;
Specific
Murder
S18
Basic
Manslaughter
S20
S47
Assault
Battery
Specific Intent Basic Intent
Voluntary Intoxication Involuntary Intoxication
Liable for fallback
position – intent crime
Complete acquittal
Example of involuntary:
Spiked Drink

7. UNLAWFUL ACT
MANSLAUGHTER
Defendant does NOT intend to kill or cause serious harm.
INGREDIENTS
• Defendant must have committed a criminal act
• This act must be dangerous as shown in the Church test. (Compared to the
reasonable and sober person
• The harm didn’t have to be aimed at the victim as in Mitchell ( Foreseeable to the
reasonable and sober person that harm would occur to someone)
• Must be physical harm
• Must be the substantial cause of death as Kennedy
• Mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter is the mens rea needed for the unlawful act
that the defendant committed

8. GRoSS NEGLiGENCE
MANSLAUGHTER
INGREDIENTS
• Did the defendant owe the victim a duty of care? Adomako – “ Ordinary principles of
the law of negligence apply”
• The defendant must breach his duty of care. He must fall below the standard of
care for that of the reasonable man.
• Did the breach cause the death? Causation – factual and legal.
• Was the breach ‘gross’ and was the conduct so bad that it can be classed as
criminal? Adomako – Defendant failed to realise the tube had come unattached from
patients mouth and they died. He couldn’t use the defence.