Read Law Right

When IRAC is done well, you don’t need the headings. The structure is invisible.

I have removed the headings from the original post and, where appropriate, brought the text together into longer paragraphs.

Compare this with the earlier post.

Question

Xander confronted Jonathan and was heard to say to Jonathan, “I’m going to break every bone in your body.” He proceeded to thump Jonathan until he fell to the ground. Then he kicked him multiple times to the body and head. Jonathan was taken to hospital, however his injuries were too severe and he died before any meaningful treatment could start. Xander admits attacking Jonathon but denies murder on the basis he did not intend to kill Jonathan.

Advise Xander on his liability for murder according to the law of England & Wales.

Dear Xander Harris,

Thank you for consulting me for legal advice on your upcoming trial for murder. I regret to inform you that in my opinion it is very likely that you will be convicted.

In order to successfully convict you, the prosecution will have to convince the jury, so that they are sure,[1] that you unlawfully killed a person in being under the King’s peace with malice aforethought.[2] That is the definition of murder in England & Wales.

The prosecution must prove every element in that definition. As defendant, you would only have to raise sufficient doubt over one element and the jury would have to acquit you. However, as I explain below, I believe it is unlikely that you will be able to do that.

I will explain each element of the offence for you.

Unlawfully

The killing must be unlawful, which implies there is potential for lawful killing.[3] The most common argument here would be self-defence – i.e. that you attacked Jonathan in self-defence because you genuinely believed he was attacking or about to attack you, and you used no more force than was necessary to resist his actions.[4] However, the facts of your case do not reveal any obvious justifications for your attack on Jonathan. Absent any evidence of this nature, it appears that Jonathan’s killing was unlawful.

Killed

The prosecution must prove that it was your actions that killed Jonathan. The law refers to this as causation and the prosecution will have to prove that Jonathan would (a) not have died ‘but for’ your actions,[5] and (b) that you are legally culpable for his death.[6] Given that you admit you carried out the attack and with the absence of any intervening actions of third-parties, it is likely that the jury will accept that it was your actions that caused Jonathan’s death. He would not have been injured ‘but for’ your attack, and there are no facts that would disturb your being legally culpable for his injuries and death.

A person in being

The law here focuses on those at the very start and very end of their lives, e.g. a baby must be fully born and expelled from the mother before it is a ‘person in being’.[7] If life-support is withdrawn from a person who medically has no chance of recovery, switching off the life-support is not homicide.[8] No such issue arises in your case.

Under the King’s peace

This odd phrase refers to the jurisdiction of the King’s courts and is nothing to do with whether the killing is carried out in wartime.[9] As such this element of the crime does not appear to be in issue here, so long as the offence was carried out within the jurisdiction of the courts of England & Wales.

With malice aforethought

In plain English, that at or just before the time you attacked Jonathan you intended either to kill[10] Jonathan or cause him very serious harm.[11] This means a person can be convicted for murder who genuinely did not intend death as a result of his actions.

You argue that you did not intend to kill Jonathan and it is unlikely that the prosecution will attempt to argue that you did. However this is irrelevant if you intended him serious harm and he died as a result. That would still be murder. There is evidence that you threatened to ‘break every bone in his body’.

The jury would very likely accept that such injuries would qualify as really serious harm and that was therefore your intention when you attacked him.

Intention

You may also be uncertain what the word ‘intention’ means in this context. Intention can be proven in two ways, which we call ‘direct intention’ and ‘oblique intention’.

Direct intention is where it was your “aim or purpose” either to kill or to seriously harm Jonathan.[12] Oblique intention arises where you neither intended to kill nor to cause serious harm, but nevertheless your actions were “virtually certain” to do so and you appreciated that fact.[13]

Independent witnesses state that you threatened to ‘break every bone in his body’. It is likely the jury would accept such words as evidence of your direct intention to cause that harm. Alternatively, the prosecution could argue that such significant use of violence, punching and then kicking Jonathan while he lay on the ground, was virtually certain to cause very serious harm and that you would appreciate that fact.

Either way the prosecution will have little difficulty in demonstrating that you acted with malice aforethought even though you did not intend to kill Jonathan.

Conclusion

In my opinion, it is highly likely that the prosecution will be able to persuade the jury that you murdered Jonathan and that you will therefore be found guilty. This would lead to a mandatory life sentence of imprisonment.[14]

Please let me know if you require my services representing you at your trial.

Yours, etc.

References

[1] Woolmington [1935] AC 462; Michael J Allen & Ian Edwards, Criminal Law (16th ed OUP 2021) 1.4.4.

[2] Allen, 9.2.1.

[3] Williams (1984) 78 CR App R 276; Allen, 9.1.1.

[4] ibid.

[5] White [1910] 2 KB 124.

[6] Allen, 2.6.3.

[7] Poulton (1832) 5 C&P 329

[8] Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789.

[9] Adebolajo [2014] EWCA Crim 2779.

[10] Moloney [1985] 1 AC 905.

[11] Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664.

[12] Moloney (n 10).

[13] Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.

[14] Sentencing Act 2020, Schd 21.