Problems with the Interpretation of Murder
| Published date | 01 February 1986 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838605000107 |
| Date | 01 February 1986 |
| Author | Barry Mitchell |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROBLEMS
WITH
THE
INTERPRETATION
OF
MURDER
Barry Mitchell*
To many people, murder is the ultimate crime. Although the
unlawful taking of the life of another person may also be treated as
manslaughter, murder is reserved for those cases where the
offender kills with a more culpable state of mind and where there
are no extenuating circumstances. For a considerable number of
years the courts have adopted Sir Edward Coke's definition of
murder: it is the unlawful killing of any reasonable creature in
being, under the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought, either
express or implied, death occurring within a year and a day. Yet
certain elements in that definition have been given varied
interpretations by the courts, and it appears that the judiciary at
least have not found it easy to indicate precisely what has to be
proven by the prosecution.
This article focusses its attention on two aspects: (1) the issue of
causation, the requirement that the defendant be shown to have
caused the death of the victim; and (2) the mental element in
murder.
CAUSATION
Before tackling this issue fully, it is worth commenting on the fact
that for a person to be guilty of murder, the victim must die within a
year and a day of the accused's original assault.' This requirement
was, of course, first introduced to counteract possible difficulties in
tracing the causation where there was a lengthy interval between
the initial assault and death. Since Coke's time the advances in
medical science have largely eradicated such difficulties, but the
rule is now justified simply on the ground that aperson who has
injured another ought not to remain indefinitely at risk of being
prosecuted for murder.2
•Department of Legal Studies, Coventry (Lanchester) Polytechnic.
76
To continue reading
Request your trial