Murder as an Offence under English Law
| Date | 01 August 2004 |
| Author | Michael Hirst |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.68.4.315.36517 |
| Published date | 01 August 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Murder as an Offence under
English Law
Michael Hirst*
Abstract This article examines the territorial and extra-territorial ambit
of the offence of murder under English law. This is not strictly speaking a
question concerning the jurisdiction of the courts, but one concerning the
actus reus of the offence itself. Murder committed outside England and
Wales cannot ordinarily amount to an offence under English law, but
there are numerous exceptions to this general rule, which are noted and
(in the case of the more significant exceptions) examined here.
Murder is the most intensively analysed offence in English law. One
fundamental issue, however, has largely been overlooked. Nobody in
recent years has attempted to map the territorial and extra-territorial
ambit of that offence. Nobody, in other words, has attempted to answer
the question, ‘When is murder (and when is it not) an offence under
English law?’ Glanville Williams addressed that issue in his seminal
article, ‘Venue and the Ambit of Criminal Law’,1and others have
examined aspects of it since, but enormous changes have taken place in
recent years and the subject now demands re-examination.
In addressing this question, it will be necessary to consider some rules
that are not specific to murder. Most of these are equally applicable to
manslaughter, and others apply to a wider range of offences; but by
concentrating on murder I hope to keep the scope of this article within
manageable proportions.
Not merely a question of jurisdiction
This article might perhaps be described as relating to ‘jurisdiction’ over
murder; but strictly speaking it is not about jurisdiction. The Crown
Court has jurisdiction to try indictable offences under English law,
wherever they are committed,2subject to any issues of diplomatic or
sovereign immunity, and to the provision of any requisite consents to
prosecution. Its real concern is the ambit of the English law of murder,
and thus the actus reus of the offence itself. The same may be said of
‘jurisdiction’ issues involving other offences. As Lord Diplock observed
in Treacy vDPP,3in which the appellant posted a blackmail demand from
England to a victim in Frankfurt, ‘The question in this appeal is not
whether the . . . court had jurisdiction to try the appellant . . . but
* Professor of Criminal Justice, De Montfort University, Leicester.
1 (1965) 81 LQR 276.
2 Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 46(2).
3 [1971] AC 537 at 559.
315
To continue reading
Request your trial