Criminal Homicide Overview

It refers to the intention to cause serious harm to another, even if death was not intended or foreseeable.

It signifies a deliberate act aimed at killing another person.

The act of striking someone resulting in death, where the intent was to cause serious harm, but not necessarily death.

The court clarified the meaning of 'grievous bodily harm' to signify really serious harm.

Lord Diplock attempted to change the existing law on GBH murder, but ultimately failed.

The court firmly established the law on GBH murder, upholding the definition established in Vickers and DPP v Smith.

Even when death wasn't planned or contemplated, an intentional act causing really serious harm can be considered murder.

A murder committed in the heat of the moment, without premeditation or planning, is still classified as murder.

The defendant's mental state, where they are unable to control their actions due to a strong emotional response.

A defense where the defendant claims they acted in response to an immediate threat, using reasonable force to protect themselves or others.

The prosecution must disprove the defense of loss of self-control if there is enough evidence to suggest it, not the defendant needing to prove it.

The jury must consider if a 'normal' person of the defendant's age and sex, with similar self-control, would have reacted similarly in the circumstances.

The jury can consider factors that impacted the gravity of the provocation for the defendant, but not all characteristics.

The defendant's own actions that contributed to their loss of self-control should not necessarily bar the defense.

The law focuses on whether a qualifying trigger caused the loss of self-control, not whether the trigger caused the loss of control.

The defense of loss of self-control can be raised even in situations where the defendant's actions initially contributed to the situation, but the prosecution will argue that their actions weren't a reasonable response to the situation.

A qualifying trigger is an event that legally justifies a loss of self-control. Examples include a serious provocation or fear of violence.

The defendant must prove they subjectively (personally) lost control of their actions and that it was not an ordinary reaction for someone of their age, sex, and self-restraint.

The defense can't be used if the defendant's actions caused the qualifying trigger. It must be an external event.

If a person has time to reflect and formulate a desire for revenge, this negates the claim of sudden loss of self-control.

The defense doesn't apply if the killing occurred long after the qualifying trigger, suggesting the defendant had time to cool down.

This case established that the defense applies even if the loss of self-control wasn't immediately triggered, but was a result of a long history of abuse.

This case established that the defense of provocation does not apply if the killing was not in response to a sudden or temporary loss of self-control. The killing must be a direct reaction to the trigger.

A mental illness characterized by delusions and hallucinations, often with themes of persecution or grandiosity.

Damage to the brain that can affect a person's mental and physical abilities.

A personality disorder characterized by a lack of empathy, remorse, and guilt, often with a history of criminal behavior.

A personality disorder characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others.

A mental disorder characterized by mood swings, feelings of sadness, and difficulty bonding with the baby.

The legal standard for determining whether a person's mental state can diminish their responsibility for a crime. Must be a recognized medical condition and impairment of rational judgment.

Intoxication, or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, is not considered a medical condition for the purpose of diminished responsibility.

Alcoholism or drug addiction can be considered a medical condition that could contribute to diminished responsibility, IF it leads to brain damage or psychosis.

The act of killing another person, which is unlawful and involves a living human victim.

The mental element of a crime, specifically referring to the intention or knowledge of the perpetrator.

The physical act of committing a crime. It involves proving that the defendant actually carried out the act.

A type of criminal homicide where the accused intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

A type of criminal homicide where the accused recklessly caused the death of a person.

A type of criminal homicide where the accused's negligence was so gross that it resulted in the death of another.

A type of criminal homicide where the death occurs during the commission of a crime, even if there was no intention to kill.

Consent from the victim is NOT a valid defense for criminal homicide.

In constructive manslaughter, the act causing death must be criminal in itself, not just negligent or dangerous. This means the act is illegal regardless of the outcome.

The unlawful act in constructive manslaughter doesn't need to be a crime against a person, but it must be directed at a person, even if not the victim directly.

The act causing death in constructive manslaughter must carry an objective risk of physical harm, not just a possibility of causing harm.

The unlawful act in constructive manslaughter doesn't need to be aimed at causing harm, just a risk of physical injury.

The prosecution must explicitly state the specific unlawful act they are relying on for a constructive manslaughter charge.

Even if a defendant's behavior contributes to a victim's suicide, it may not be enough to establish constructive manslaughter without an unlawful act directly causing the death.

Driving offenses like drunk driving or careless driving, alone, don't automatically make someone guilty of manslaughter. The act must be criminal in itself, not just negligent.

The mens rea (intention) required for constructive manslaughter is different from the mens rea required for murder.