Evaluation of Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter

Evaluation of Murder Main areas of the law of murder considered to be in need of change or clarification are: Intent: Express/implied Direct/indirect Mandatory life sentence

Intent – where prime intent is not to kill Maloney – Lord Bridge said that in the great majority of cases it would be enough for jury to consider whether the prosecution has satisfied them that D had intended a particular consequence But establishing MR in cases where the prime intent was not to kill will inevitably cause problems – what did D intend? What did he foresee might happen as a result of his act? Only D can possibly know what was in his mind at the time. In some cases even D might not have known

Implied Intent - cause serious bodily harm A person who intends to cause serious bodily harm and actually causes his victim’s death is guilty of murder Should a D whose only intention is to cause serious bodily harm be as guilty of murder as one who deliberately sets out to kill? What about a D whose main intention isn’t even to cause serious bodily harm? In Hancock and Shankland, Ds argued their intention had been to block the road when they threw the concrete slab from the bridge

Criticism of Implied Malice Vickers confirmed that intention to cause GHB amounts to intention for murder Grievous is interpreted as “serious harm that does not have to be life threatening” Cheshire – victim died of medical complications following the initial wound which was not in itself life threatening. Murder conviction leads to mandatory life sentence and arguably this should be reserved solely for those who intend to kill Implied malice rule has been criticised by many judges and legal writers as it is argued it extends the definition of murder too far – it is hard to justify because the fault element (intention to cause GBH) does not correspond to the consequences (death of victim) No premeditation required for murder – intent to kill can arise in the heat of the moment

Suggested Reform on Implied Intent Often been suggested that law on murder be codified so that it is included in new legislation Draft Criminal Code produced in 1989 proposed this definition of the intention for murder: Intending to cause death Intending to cause serious personal harm and being aware that he may cause death D would only be found guilty if jury was sure that D was aware his action could cause death But no attempt has been made to codify the law in this way

Intent – Indirect Intent - Foresight of Consequences Has been a confusing situation in defining foresight of consequences In Woollin – held that foresight of consequences amounts to intention In Matthews and Alleyne – held that foresight of consequences is a rule of evidence so jury is entitled to find intention but is not obliged to do so

Suggested Reform Law Commission is its report – Offences Against the Person and General Principles (1993) proposed the word intentionally should be defined as: It is his purpose to cause the result; or Although it is not his intention to cause the result, he knows that it would occur in the ordinary course of events if he were to succeed in his purpose of causing some other result This would clarify the position on foresight of consequences and intent

Mandatory Life Sentence Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965 Reasoning – murder is generally held to be the most dreadful of crimes and deserves the maximum sentence permitted by law Also an element of appeasing those who opposed the abolition of the death penalty Applies to any person over the age of 18 When passing the sentence judge must decide on the tariff – length of time D must serve in prison as a minimum before being considered for release Length of tariff depends on particular factors of the crime – e.g. whether it was racially motivated or had a sexual element Once D has served minimum time under the tariff he may be released but under licence which means he can be made to return to prison if he doesn’t comply with the terms of his release – so sentence remains even when D is no longer in prison In some cases, judge can order a whole of life sentence – D will never be released Person between 10 and 17 is “detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure” – indefinitely until such a time as it is deemed safe to return him to society

Criticisms of Mandatory Life Sentence No flexibility for judge to vary sentence according to seriousness of the killing: Murders cover varying degrees of seriousness – e.g. cold-blooded serial killers such as Sutcliffe or the Wests, or those who kill from motives of compassion (mercy killers), or those like Anthony Martin who overstep the limits of reasonable force in self-defence In order to avoid the Mandatory Life Sentence, inappropriate verdicts of manslaughter may be returned – e.g. in cases of “mercy killings” where defence of diminished responsibility has been accepted with the flimsiest of evidence If life imprisonment does not usually mean for life then why call it life imprisonment and insist on it being passed?

Suggested Reform Abolish mandatory life sentence and make it discretionary – other crimes like manslaughter, rape, wounding with intent, attempted murder all have a maximum of life imprisonment but it is discretionary Judge would have the flexibility to impose life (meaning for life) for the most serious murders, and for other killings could impose a term of years reflecting their seriousness Different degrees of murder could be introduced, as in the USA Most serious murders would attract mandatory life sentence and less serious ones would attract discretionary life sentences