Crime in England and Wales: Murder Offences

The most serious form of homicide.

Malice aforethought.

It arises in cases where a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim.

As the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King or Queen's peace with malice aforethought express or implied.

Intent to cause serious injury is sufficient for murder if death results.

Without lawful justification or excuse.

The defendant's acts or omissions must be the operating and most substantial cause of death with no novus actus interveniens to break the chain of causation.

It refers to a life independently of the mother, where the umbilical cord has been severed and the baby has a life of its own.

The case involved a murder charge for the death of an unborn child, and the Lords considered the case of a man who stabbed his pregnant wife in an argument. The baby died some time after the premature birth, and the cause of death was due to the effect of the attack on the mother, rather than due to any injury.

There are conflicting authorities on the point, but in short, any contingency that is foreseeable will maintain the chain of causation.

The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King or Queen's peace with malice aforethought express or implied.

Transferred malice occurs when a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim. It arises in cases where the defendant had the intent to cause serious harm or injury, alone or with others, which results in a death.

The 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam marked a shift in treating killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness as murder. This decision had an impact on the understanding and categorization of murder from the 12th century onwards.

The 'year and a day rule' was a clause in the actus reus of murder which stated that a death occurring after a year and a day of the defendant's act could not be considered murder. This rule was abolished in 1996.

The effect of this rule is partly retained despite abolition, since intent to kill is not necessary – intent (including common intent) to cause serious injury is sufficient for murder if death results.

Unlawfully means without lawful justification or excuse.

There are conflicting authorities on the above point, R v Jordan and R v Smith. In short, any contingency that is foreseeable will maintain the chain. Put the other way, only some unexpected act by a third party which places the original attack as a merely a background context, or some unpredictable natural phenomenon, will break the chain.

The element of intentionality in murder was originally termed as 'intent to kill'.

For a killing to amount to murder by a defendant, the defendant's acts or omissions must be the operating and most substantial cause of death with no novus actus interveniens to break the chain of causation.

'A life in being' refers to the concept of a reasonable creature in rerum natura, i.e. a life independently of the mother, once the umbilical cord has been severed.