Home › Criminal Law › 3 · Murder

Module 3 · Murder

Murder is examined in 2023, 2024 and 2025, with at most one open-and-shut killing per paper. The rest are mens rea contests designed to push the H1 writer down to manslaughter. Statutory murder s 3A is out by scope ruling, and defensive homicide is historical only. The examined skill is a clean fault analysis and the discipline to move to manslaughter when murder is not realistically available.

Cases at a glance

The fault element

Having set out the plan we take the fault element limb by limb. The physical elements sit in Module 1 and are usually uncontested, so the fault element is where the words go.

Limb one: intent to kill

Intent to kill is rarely announced. A stated threat followed immediately by the act threatened proves the limb on any view, and weeks of planning prove it just as surely, because words and planning are conduct from which intent is inferred (Parker). Where nothing suggests the accused wanted anyone dead, put the limb aside in a sentence.

Limb two: intent to cause really serious injury

Do not gloss really serious injury, because the gloss is the error. Two boundary points survive the no-gloss rule. The injury must be a bodily injury, and unconsciousness qualifies (Rhodes). It need not be life threatening, which would narrow the element too far (Cunningham). Conduct can carry the intent on its own. Strangulation to unconsciousness illustrates conduct capable of showing this intent (Rhodes), and pressure maintained on a victim who has stopped struggling is the classic examined form.

Watch the denial that answers the wrong limb. An accused who says she never wanted the victim dead has answered only the intent to kill. This limb is a separate key on the ring and must still be run (DPP v Smith).

Limb three: foresight that death or really serious injury was probable

Two words carry this limb. Probable rather than possible fixes the height of the bar (Crabbe). Subjective rather than objective fixes whose mind is measured (Pemble). Obvious danger proves nothing until the prosecution shows the accused herself foresaw it. The strongest proof is the accused's own recorded words, because a person who predicts the fatal mechanism and proceeds anyway has stated her foresight herself.

The examined distractor is statistical. Facts plant evidence that the odds of harm to any one person were low and invite a possibility conclusion. The limb asks whether the accused foresaw probable death or really serious injury to someone, and per victim odds answer a different question. The counter runs both ways. Where foresight is genuinely not proved, a low chance honestly appreciated is a possibility only, and Crabbe draws its line to keep that case out of murder.

A deliberate refusal to look changes nothing by itself. An accused who suspects the truth and abstains from inquiry so as to be able to deny knowledge is not thereby fixed with it, because actual knowledge or foresight is necessary and imputed knowledge is never enough for murder. Deliberate abstention from inquiry may, however, be evidence of the accused's actual knowledge or foresight, and that evidentiary use is the only use it has (Crabbe).

The gap between reckless murder and unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter is the module's central comparison:

Proving fault without words

Most exam killings come without admissions, and inference from conduct is then the whole case. Nineteen aimed blows to the head speak for themselves. You do not act as the accused acted without the intent (Parker, Windeyer J at 649). The absence of witnesses or admissions is no obstacle where the character of the act carries the inference. Motive is not intention and its absence proves nothing. The inference must still land on the accused's own state of mind (Pemble).

Zaburoni sharpens both halves of that sentence. Motive is the reason that prompts the formation of the intention, and where the offence requires an intention to produce a result the prosecution must prove the accused had that result as her purpose or object. An accused who shoots his business partner may intend to kill while his motive is to avoid repaying a debt, and only the intention is the element, the motive being at most evidence of it (Zaburoni). The distinction runs the other way too. A person may intend a result without desiring it in the least, as where she kills under duress, so a genuine plea that she did not want the outcome does not negate intention.

Transferred malice: the changed victim

Prove the fault against the intended target first, then transfer it to the actual victim by name. The defence line that the death was a pure accident, or that the accused had nothing against the actual victim, is exactly what the doctrine answers. Letting the changed victim pass in silence loses the doctrine's marks, and treating the changed victim as fatal to fault loses the charge.

Contemporaneity and the single transaction

The accused attacks meaning to kill or seriously injure, believes the victim dead, and completes the death by an act of disposal such as burial. Taken alone the disposal carries no fault because at that moment the accused believes there is no one left to kill. Run the single transaction inside the murder script rather than conceding the gap. Where the attack and the disposal were one connected design the fault at the first act carries across the whole transaction (Thabo Meli).

Where hours separate the acts the point is genuinely contestable. A gap neither severs nor preserves the transaction by itself. Ask whether the later act belonged to a design live at the first act, such as a plan stated during the interval. Argue both sides and conclude with the better view.

The script for a murder answer

The fault paragraph carries the marks and its skill is selection. An answer that runs all three limbs at equal length reads as a checklist recited rather than advice.

A worked example

Critical pitfalls and counter-arguments

How the examiners mark it

The marking method is element by element with the time weighted to the contest. If the Crown will obviously prove an element, say briefly why and move on. If it is not clear, explain why the Crown might have difficulty. Open the offence with the elements and their authority, then a triage sentence naming which elements are live.

Two levers earn the marks. Issue coverage helps, and calibrated conclusions are rewarded on their own. Conclude in likelihood language rather than binary verdicts, such as a jury would probably find the intent proved, or it is less clear that a jury would be satisfied of foresight. Commit where the facts are one sided and hedge with a stated reason where they are not.

Descend to manslaughter only where there is real doubt about murder. Where murder fails on fault, run the involuntary manslaughter elements. Where murder is open and shut, there is no need to discuss manslaughter at all. Doomed charges are killed in one line rather than omitted, and the fault finding made for murder is reused on the way down, because a Crown that cannot prove intent to cause really serious injury cannot prove the lesser intents either. Provide authority for every statement of law and skip the introduction. A problem answer is a logical exercise rather than an essay.

Take it to the practice bank

This module is drilled in the Criminal Law practice bank. Every problem there carries a realistic Pass answer, an H1 model answer, and an examiner's comment explaining the decisive fact and where the marks are lost.

Practice prompts

1. Name the one realistically arguable fault limb on a set of facts and explain why the others fail.
2. Write the reckless murder paragraph so that it turns on the accused's own knowledge, not the reasonable person's.
3. Take an open and shut killing and a contested one, and calibrate how many words each deserves.
4. Draft the sentence that dismisses murder and moves to manslaughter without losing the marks for raising it.
5. Explain the gap between reckless murder and the dangerousness element of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter.
6. Prove the fault against the intended target, then transfer it to the actual victim by name.
7. Argue both sides of a four hour gap between the attack and the act that killed, and conclude with the better view.