TUTORIAL 4

CULPABLE HOMICIDE I
Key cases:
Moloney [1985] 1 All ER 1025
Cunningham [1981] 2 All ER 863
Questions
[Link] is the definition of murder in England and Wales?

Murder is when:
• A man of sound memory and of the age of discretion,
• Unlawfully kills
• Any reasonable creature in rerum natura (a human being)
• Under the King’s peace
• With malice aforethought (either express or implied)
• So that the party dies of the wound or hurt within a year and a day of the act
2. When can a person be found guilty of murder under the Penal Code?

Under the Malaysian Penal Code, a person can be found guilty of murder when the act that causes death
satisfies the conditions set out in Section 300 of the Code. Murder is considered a form of culpable
homicide under Section 299, but it becomes murder when the mental element or mens rea involved is
more severe. According to Section 300, culpable homicide is murder if the act is done with the intention
of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows is likely to
cause death of the victim. It is also murder if the injury inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death, or if the offender acts with the knowledge that his act is so imminently dangerous
that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury. However, a charge of murder may be
reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if any of the exceptions under Section 300 apply,
such as death caused by grave and sudden provocation, or in good faith while exceeding the right of
private defence, among others. Thus, the distinction between murder and culpable homicide lies
primarily in the degree of intention or knowledge involved, and whether any statutory exceptions are
applicable.

3. While Barry was making repairs to the roof, Ben thought it would be funny to go and
frighten Barry. Ben went up and sneaked up behind Barry and shouted “Boo”! Barry fell from
the roof and was killed. Can Ben be held liable for murdering Barry?

No, Ben is not likely to be liable for murder because:

Murder- Sir Coke definition

Unlawful killing
-whether the killing is lawful- private and public defence and misadventure-accident (no intention) and
lawful act and don’t involving gross negligence

Causation
-Factual- the accused is guilty or not guilty
-Legal- substantive (contributed significantly and operating cause (no new act intervene)
MR-Malice aforethought
-intention to kill or cause GBH
-Direct Intention-Act/Omission——Act (R v Mohan)
-Oblique intention (Foreseeable), virtual certainty (R v Woolin)
Test in Woolin
-Was th result a virtual certainty of the D act/omission
-Did the D know
-Jury is entitled to find intention

Application:
-Private defence and Public defence not satisfy
-Misadventure-accident (no intention), Lawful act ( not lawful act ), Gross negligence (degree of
negligence)
Unlawful act is satisfy

MR
Act (Boo) ——————-> (Barry falling and died)
-direct intention-aim is not to kill Barry , wanted to frighten him only
-Oblique intention-depends on how Barry treat the threaten , no virtual certainty to died
Did the D know?- no, just frighten
No men’s rea
Not liable for murder

CULPABLE HOMICIDE II
Key cases:
Byrne [1960] 2 Q.B. 396
Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All E.R. 889
Holley [2005] UKPC 23
Questions
[Link] can a person commit voluntary manslaughter in England & Wales?

How can a person commit voluntary manslaughter in England & Wales?

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant commits murder but with mitigating factors that
reduce liability:
• Loss of Control (under Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.54–55):
• Fear of serious violence (s.55(3))
• Extremely grave circumstances causing a justifiable sense of being wronged (s.55(4))
• Must be a loss of self-control (not necessarily sudden) 
• Diminished Responsibility (under Homicide Act 1957, as amended by CJA 2009):
• Defendant suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning from a recognised medical
condition that:
• Substantially impairs their ability to understand, judge, or control actions.
• Explains their act in killing (e.g., Byrne, Ahluwalia

[Link] has been living in fear with her boyfriend for many years. He was an alcoholic and he
would beat her up for no good reason. Cherrie went to see a counsellor who advised her to
move into a home for battered women. When she told her boyfriend of her intention to
move out, he beat her up again until he was too tired. He said that he will break her legs
later to prevent her from leaving. But before that, he wanted her to cook his dinner.
While she was boiling stew, she went to the basement and searched for rat poison. Once she
found, she put some into the stew, making sure it was not too much that her boyfriend
would be suspicious upon tasting it.
He ate the stew and not long after, he died due to poisoning.
Advice Cherrie on the possible criminal offences she may be charged with. Discuss both
Malaysian Law and English Law.

Loss of Control (s.54–55 CJA 2009):

She suffered long-term abuse and feared serious violence (he threatened to break her legs).

But her actions may not be viewed as loss of self-control, as it was deliberate and calculated, not a spontaneous
reaction .

This weakens the loss of control defence (see Ahluwalia – provocation rejected due to lack of suddenness).

Diminished Responsibility:

If she can show she suffered from Battered Woman Syndrome or other mental condition that substantially
impaired her ability to form rational judgment (per Byrne and Ahluwalia), this defence may reduce murder to
voluntary manslaughter

Under Malaysian law, Cherrie may be charged with murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code, as her actions
appear to fall within the scope of Section 300(a) or (d). She deliberately and calmly poisoned her boyfriend by
adding rat poison into his food, knowing that it was likely to cause death. Her conduct shows premeditation and
intention to kill, especially since she took steps to ensure the poison would not raise suspicion. However,
Cherrie may attempt to rely on Exception 1 to Section 300, which provides that culpable homicide is not murder
if the accused, while deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person
who provoked her. In this case, Cherrie had suffered prolonged abuse and threats, and the immediate assault
and threat to break her legs could be argued as grave and sudden provocation. However, courts in Malaysia
have generally required the response to be immediate and spontaneous, and the fact that Cherrie waited until
he was asleep and calmly poisoned his food may weaken this defence. Alternatively, she may attempt to rely
on Exception 2, which applies when a person exceeds the right of private defence in good faith. Yet, since there
was no immediate threat when she poisoned him, this defence may not succeed. Therefore, although Cherrie
may argue that she was driven by years of abuse and provocation, the planning involved in her actions and lack
of immediate danger may lead the court to find her guilty of murder under Malaysian law.

Murder- boyfriend is human being, under the king’s peace

Act (poison) ———-> result( boyfriend died)

Unlawful killing,

Private defence? Immenitnt threat? No, because done later, nor under public defence

Misadventure- no accidentally, have intention to kill

Unlawful killing satisfied

Causation-factual causation is satisfied, contributed significantly , the cause of the death is the poison done by
the Cherrie ( died due to the poisoning) , operating cause, yes, no intervening act, fact no provide new acts that
is intervening)

Actus reus satisfied

Men’s rea,

Direct intention- committed murder against the boyfriend

Partially defences

-Voluntary mass laughter= murder + mc

Mc

-loss of control

Done lost of control

-54(1)(a)(b) 55 Loc -55(3)- fear of serious violence , 55(4)- gross provocation, 55(5) combination , (satisfy one.
Is enough)

-54(1c) reasonable men test -special reasonable person (same sex and age of the person , tolerance and same
restrain, circumstance of the defendant (54(3)) exclude capacity of tolerance and self-restraints

-suicide part

-diminishing part 52 of LOC subsection 1 a b c

-gross provocation and com can satisfy

-reasonable person?

Conclusion is loss of. Control successful be satisfy, voluntary manslaughter

Identify the offences ( fatal and non fatal offences) died-fatal

State the law: Actus and Men’s Reus

Application, clear of the fact and explain

Conclusion, be charged for the particular offences