Definition of murder
Discussion
There seems to be a bit of confusion with the NPE thread of a pensioner being murdered. So to help with clarification, here's the definition.....
"The law of murder is set out in common law. The legal definition of murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'.
The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.
A murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. The judge passing sentence can not pass a lesser sentence no matter how mitigating the circumstances might be. There exist three partial defences to murder which may reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum sentence of life and thus allows the judge discretion on sentencing. These partial defences are contained in the Homicide Act 1957 and consist of diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact."
"The law of murder is set out in common law. The legal definition of murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'.
The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.
A murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. The judge passing sentence can not pass a lesser sentence no matter how mitigating the circumstances might be. There exist three partial defences to murder which may reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum sentence of life and thus allows the judge discretion on sentencing. These partial defences are contained in the Homicide Act 1957 and consist of diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact."
pocketspring said:
There seems to be a bit of confusion with the NPE thread of a pensioner being murdered. So to help with clarification, here's the definition.....
"The law of murder is set out in common law. The legal definition of murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'.
The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.
A murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. The judge passing sentence can not pass a lesser sentence no matter how mitigating the circumstances might be. There exist three partial defences to murder which may reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum sentence of life and thus allows the judge discretion on sentencing. These partial defences are contained in the Homicide Act 1957 and consist of diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact."
So is recklessness a defence? Also aiding and abetting can see a murder conviction for a person who didn't pull the trigger. "The law of murder is set out in common law. The legal definition of murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'.
The actus reus of murder consists of the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace. The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought, which has been interpreted by the courts as meaning intention to kill or intention to cause GBH.
A murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. The judge passing sentence can not pass a lesser sentence no matter how mitigating the circumstances might be. There exist three partial defences to murder which may reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter which carries a maximum sentence of life and thus allows the judge discretion on sentencing. These partial defences are contained in the Homicide Act 1957 and consist of diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact."
Voldemort said:
So is recklessness a defence?
Recklessness is not sufficient for murder - the prosecution must prove specific intent to cause death or serious injury. If your merely reckless as to whether death or serious injury is caused then it would be some other crime, eg gross negligence manslaughter.The above is true in England and Wales; IIRC in Scotland recklessness can be sufficient men's rea for a murder conviction.
pocketspring said:
... These partial defences are contained in the Homicide Act 1957 and consist of diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact."
It’s 2023.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/secti...
Loss of control is a partial defence.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/...
Leaving aside the detailed legal language, and bearing in mind the definition of murder differs between different countries, the broad outline in England etc is,
Intended to kill and killed the victim = murder = life imprisonment
Intended to kill but only injured the victim = attempted murder = up to life imprisonment
Only intended to scare or injure the victim but accidentally killed them = murder = life imprisonment
.... A murder conviction is always a life sentence.
Never intended to hurt anyone and didn't do anything reckless/dangerous but death resulted = no offence at all
Killing someone deliberately but without prior intent and only after severe provocation = manslaughter (voluntary)
Doing something really stupid/reckless/illegal with no intent to hurt anyone but someone gets killed = manslaughter (involuntary)
.... Sentencing can vary widely according to the severity of the offence, essentially anything between between nothing and life imprisonment.
Yes, the sentence for manslaughter can be just as severe as for murder.
Note that "causing death by dangerous driving" and "causing death by driving while under the influence of drink/drugs" are offences defined by statute and exist separately from the brief outline above. Essentially you can be convicted if you kill someone by doing those things whether or not you had any intention of hurting anyone.
Intended to kill and killed the victim = murder = life imprisonment
Intended to kill but only injured the victim = attempted murder = up to life imprisonment
Only intended to scare or injure the victim but accidentally killed them = murder = life imprisonment
.... A murder conviction is always a life sentence.
Never intended to hurt anyone and didn't do anything reckless/dangerous but death resulted = no offence at all
Killing someone deliberately but without prior intent and only after severe provocation = manslaughter (voluntary)
Doing something really stupid/reckless/illegal with no intent to hurt anyone but someone gets killed = manslaughter (involuntary)
.... Sentencing can vary widely according to the severity of the offence, essentially anything between between nothing and life imprisonment.
Yes, the sentence for manslaughter can be just as severe as for murder.
Note that "causing death by dangerous driving" and "causing death by driving while under the influence of drink/drugs" are offences defined by statute and exist separately from the brief outline above. Essentially you can be convicted if you kill someone by doing those things whether or not you had any intention of hurting anyone.
If that is murder then pls also post up what manslaughter is, thanks.
TX.
Edit - to note it says "intention to kill" which I guess can be hard to prove. Take the pensioner case how did they prove it was intentional and not an accident?
TX.
Edit - to note it says "intention to kill" which I guess can be hard to prove. Take the pensioner case how did they prove it was intentional and not an accident?
Edited by Terminator X on Saturday 1st April 14:56
What's happened to all the posts in this thread between 10:29 and about 12:10 when I posted something about how valuable I found PH forums? It's all disappeared! I have the page as it was in my browser's cache, so I can see exactly what's gone missing. A bit of argy bargy went on, but nothing particularly inflammatory? Maybe it all escalated after I went out at 12:15. Normally if admin action has removed posts, you get an email stating what has happened, but nothing received. Very weird!
TX - If you re-read carefully I think you'll find your questions are already answered in my brief outline. Beyond that, Google is your friend.
Killing/homicide is always one of murder, manslaughter or no offence. (Including insanity defence etc)
You can't "attempt" manslaughter, it's always accidental.
As mentioned above you can be guilty of murder even if you never intended to kill.
Killing/homicide is always one of murder, manslaughter or no offence. (Including insanity defence etc)
You can't "attempt" manslaughter, it's always accidental.
As mentioned above you can be guilty of murder even if you never intended to kill.
Panamax said:
Intended to kill or cause serious injury and killed the victim = murder (setting aside partial or full defences like diminished responsibility, self defence etc) = life imprisonment
Intended to kill but only injured the victim = attempted murder = up to life imprisonment
Only intended to scare or non-seriously injure the victim but accidentally killed them = not murder, likely manslaughter = up to life imprisonment
Fixed that for you.Intended to kill but only injured the victim = attempted murder = up to life imprisonment
Only intended to scare or non-seriously injure the victim but accidentally killed them = not murder, likely manslaughter = up to life imprisonment
matchmaker said:
The Scottish definition is a lot simpler. "Murder is any wilful act causing the destruction of life, whether wickedly intended to kill, or displaying such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of consequences."
No mention of it being human life? Can you be done for murder in Scotland for chopping down a tree? Panamax said:
TX - If you re-read carefully I think you'll find your questions are already answered in my brief outline. Beyond that, Google is your friend.
Killing/homicide is always one of murder, manslaughter or no offence. (Including insanity defence etc)
You can't "attempt" manslaughter, it's always accidental.
As mentioned above you can be guilty of murder even if you never intended to kill.
Based on your replies, Google isn't your friend. Further, there are various homicide offences involving bad driving.Killing/homicide is always one of murder, manslaughter or no offence. (Including insanity defence etc)
You can't "attempt" manslaughter, it's always accidental.
As mentioned above you can be guilty of murder even if you never intended to kill.
It's harder to prove attempted murder than murder.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
matchmaker said:
The Scottish definition is a lot simpler. "Murder is any wilful act causing the destruction of life, whether wickedly intended to kill, or displaying such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of consequences."
No mention of it being human life? Can you be done for murder in Scotland for chopping down a tree? matchmaker said:
The Scottish definition is a lot simpler. "Murder is any wilful act causing the destruction of life, whether wickedly intended to kill, or displaying such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of consequences."
Does “wicked” have a defined meaning?NikBartlett said:
The definition is out of date, we have a King now. Does this make any conviction for murder since the death of the Queen unsafe on a technicality ?
Nice try, but if you look at the relevant section 'Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter' in CPS guidelines you'll find that's already been dealt with!www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-...
Scroll down to 'Murder'.
matchmaker said:
The Scottish definition is a lot simpler. "Murder is any wilful act causing the destruction of life, whether wickedly intended to kill, or displaying such wicked recklessness as to imply a disposition depraved enough to be regardless of consequences."
This is interesting.To me this implies that any talentless, thieving, feckless scrote who steals a car and drives it like a lunatic, without insurance or a licence, high on drugs, alcohol or both, and with no regard for the lives of pedestrians and other road users, could be convicted of murder in Scotland if by his reckless actions he kills a person.
In England, because he didn't go out with the intention of killing said person, he cannot be tried for murder.
Or have I misunderstood (as usual)?
QBee said:
This is interesting.
To me this implies that any talentless, thieving, feckless scrote who steals a car and drives it like a lunatic, without insurance or a licence, high on drugs, alcohol or both, and with no regard for the lives of pedestrians and other road users, could be convicted of murder in Scotland if by his reckless actions he kills a person.
In England, because he didn't go out with the intention of killing said person, he cannot be tried for murder.
Or have I misunderstood (as usual)?
No spot on (although there are other death by driving offences as well, but let's keep this simplistic). Manslaughter can have sentencing on par with murder though...so although the offence will differ, the outcome could be the same.To me this implies that any talentless, thieving, feckless scrote who steals a car and drives it like a lunatic, without insurance or a licence, high on drugs, alcohol or both, and with no regard for the lives of pedestrians and other road users, could be convicted of murder in Scotland if by his reckless actions he kills a person.
In England, because he didn't go out with the intention of killing said person, he cannot be tried for murder.
Or have I misunderstood (as usual)?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff