#19785 - Murder - Murder

Murder is considered the most serious criminal offense because it inflicts the ultimate harm: death.

Common Law Offense in Guyana

Unlike some countries with statutory definitions,murder in Guyana is a common law offense. The Criminal Law (Offenses) Act addresses murder by creating the offense and prescribing penalties, but it does not define it.

Example:

Section 101 of the Criminal Law (Offenses) Act, Chapter 8:01 states:

• Everyone who commits murder shall be guilty of a felony and liable to suffer death as a felon.

Contrast this with Section 117 of the Criminal Code of Belize, Chapter 101:

• Every person who intentionally causes the death of another person by any unlawful harm is guilty of murder.

Defining Murder Through Case Law

Since there's no statutory definition in Guyana, we refer tocase lawto define murder. The classic definition, originating from Sir Edward Coke in the 17th century, remains relevant:

• Murder is when a person of sound memory and of the age of discretion unlawfully kills within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by the law, so as the party wounded or hurt etc. die of the wound or hurt etc. within a year and a day after the same.

Note:The "year and a day" rule, requiring the victim to die within a year and a day of the injury, was abolished in England by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act of 1996. However, itstill applies in Guyana.

Elements of Murder: Actus Reus and Mens Rea

The definition of murder outlines the elements that fall underactus reus(the guilty act) andmens rea(the guilty mind).

Actus Reus: The Guilty Act

Sound Memory and Age of Discretion: This refers to arational and responsible human beingabove the age of criminal responsibility. It excludes individuals who can successfully plead insanity based on theM'Naghten rules. It also excludesnon-human legal persons, meaning a corporation cannot be charged with murder as it cannot be subjected to penalties like death or imprisonment.

Age of Criminal Responsibility in Guyana: The age of criminal responsibility in Guyana is14 years old, as per Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Offenses) Act, Chapter 8:01.

Reasonable Creature in Rerum Natura: This refers to ahuman beingwho can be a victim of murder. Ababy must be fully bornto be considered a living human being. Afetus, regardless of its development stage, cannot be a victim of murder.

Key Cases:

Defining "Born Alive": For a murder conviction, thechildmust be: Born alive and fully expelled from the womb. The umbilical cord being severed or not is irrelevant. The child must exist separately from the mother, even if briefly, and have breathed. Anunborn childcannot be the victim of murder while in utero. The act causing death can occur while the child is still in utero, as long as the child is alive as a distinct individual before death for a murder conviction to be successful.

Case Studies

Re Children (2000): This case dealt withconjoined twins. Medical experts suggested that operating would kill twin B but save twin A. Without the operation, both would die. Lord Justice Brook decided the operation should proceed based onnecessity. Twin A survived; Twin B did not. The court held it lawful to kill the weaker twin to save the other given the circumstances.

R v Senior (1832): A mortal wound was administered to the child's head during birth, before the child had breathed. The court held that if a defendant harms an unborn child who is subsequently born alive and later dies from those injuries, it constitutesactus reusfor murder.

R v Malcherek and R v Steel (1981): The defendants were charged with murder. The court held that if a defendant injures a victim, requiring life support, the defendant continues to have inflicted the operating cause of death. Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatmentdoes not break thechain of causationbetween the initial injury and death. The appeal against conviction for murder was dismissed.

Year and a Day Rule: The requirement thatdeath occur within a year and a daystill represents the law in Ghana (366 or 367 days if it's a leap year). This has been abolished in England by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act of 1996.

Under the King's Peace: This distinguishes betweenwartimeandpeacetime. A soldier who kills an enemy in battle is not guilty of murder, even with intent to kill.

R v Page (1954): A British soldier killed an Egyptian in Egypt. He argued it was not a British person killed on British soil. The court upheld the conviction for murder imposed at court-martial. This aspect does not extend to killing enemy combatants who have been captured or who have surrendered. Prisoners of war are protected by the law relating to murder.

Unlawful Killing: A lawful killing does not amount to murder. The best example of a killing that is not unlawful is one where the killing is inself-defense.

Airdale National Health Service Trust against Bland: Bland was injured at the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989 and was in a vegetative state for over two years. Doctors agreed to remove the feeding tube, but the official solicitor appealed. The House of Lords determined that while doctors have a duty to act in the patient's best interest, they are not necessarily required to prolong life. Since there was no prognosis for improvement, it was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment.

R v Barkley (Jamaican Case): Relates to the principle that the killing must be unlawful. Certain defenses, if applicable, would render the killing lawful, such as self defense. In Ary Barkley a prisoner was killed and it was revealed in the evidence that the deceased was intent on committing sodomy on their accused with whom he was confined in a cell and the Court held that in the circumstances the jury could return of verdict not guilty based on a killing in self defense given the circumstances and they held that justifiable homicide which would amount to um self defense was correctly left to the jury.

Misau v The Queen (West Indian Case): Dealt with self defense in a fight outside of a dance in St. Lucia.

Causation

The defendant must have killed the victim. Apart from proving the act or omission by the defendant, the prosecution must prove that such act or omission was thelegal cause of death.

To establish criminal liability, it must be proven that the defendant's actions caused the victim's death, bothin factandin law.

R v White: The defendant poisoned his mother's drink with the intention to kill her. The mother drank a few sips and fell asleep, ultimately dying from a heart attack, not the poison. The"but for" testof causation was applied: Could it be established that "but for" the defendant's act, his mother would not have died? The defendant was not convicted of murder, as his act did not cause her death, but the conviction for attempted murder was upheld due to his intention.

R v Smith: A soldier was stabbed by the defendant during a fight. The injured soldier received poor medical treatment; he was dropped twice. At the hospital, a misdiagnosis led to an untreated punctured lung. The court held that thestab woundwas theoperating causeof death, even though not the sole cause. The chain of causation was not broken, and the murder conviction was upheld.

Dalloway: A child was killed after running in front of a car. The car driver wasn't holding the reins. Expert evidence suggested that even if the reins were held, the accident couldn't have been avoided. The defendant was not culpable for negligence.

Nous Actus Interveniens

Nous Actus Interveniens: An intervening cause that could break the chain of causation.

• According toMalcherek and Steel, if the defendant's act is theoperating or substantial cause, the defendant is still liable, even with other contributing causes.

R v Malcherek and Steel: The defendant stabbed his wife, who was then placed on life support. Doctors detected no brain activity and switched off the machine. The defendant was convicted of murder. The court held that switching off the machine was not an intervening act that broke the chain of causation; the original injury remained acontinuing, operating, and substantial cause of death.

R v Pagett: The defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield while shooting at police. Police returned fire, and the girlfriend was killed in the crossfire. The court held that "but for" the defendant's act of using his girlfriend as a shield, she would not have died as she did.

Eggshell (Thin) Skull Rule

• If a victim has a characteristic that makes them more susceptible to injury, the defendant is still responsible for the resulting harm.

R v...