Essay Plan: “Murder is only committed by people who kill with the intention that their victims should die, and the law should be reformed to reflect that.”

Essay Plan: “Murder is only committed by people who kill with the intention that their victims should die, and the law should be reformed to reflect that.”

This statement suggests that the law of murder should be restricted to cases where the defendant has a specific intention to kill. However, the current law recognises several other forms of culpability beyond direct intention, leading to complexities and contradictions. This essay will evaluate this statement by examining the role of intention in murder, the implications of related legal doctrines, and the potential challenges of such a reform.

Paragraph 1: Disagreeing with the Restriction to Intention to Kill

Intention to Cause GBH or ABH Resulting in Death:

◦ R v Vickers (1957): The defendant was convicted of murder despite not intending to kill the victim. Instead, he intended to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), which resulted in the victim's death. The court held that an intention to cause serious injury that leads to death is sufficient for a murder conviction. This case demonstrates that the law recognises a broader scope of culpability beyond mere intention to kill.

◦ R v Cunningham (1957): This case expanded the concept of recklessness but also contributed to the understanding of intent in criminal law. It clarified that recklessness could be considered when assessing the mental state of the defendant, influencing the interpretation of intent in relation to murder.

Challenges of Reform:

• Broad Scope: Restricting murder solely to cases where the defendant intended to kill would disregard the established principle that intending serious bodily harm which results in death is also a serious crime deserving of the murder label. This broadens the spectrum of criminal responsibility in a way that aligns with the severity of the consequences rather than the defendant's precise intent.

Paragraph 2: Complexities in Defining Intention

Classifying Intention:

◦ Moloney (1985): Established that intention includes not only the aim or purpose but also the foresight of the consequences as virtually certain. This case highlighted that direct intention is not the only form of culpability for murder.

◦ Nedrick (1986): The court clarified that foresight of death or serious injury as a virtual certainty is sufficient to establish intent. The case involved setting fire to a house with the foreseeability that death would result.

◦ Woollin (1998): Affirmed that if death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions, the jury could infer intent. This extended the understanding of indirect intention, providing a framework for evaluating cases where the defendant's aim was not to kill directly but where the outcome was foreseeably fatal.

Issues with Reform:

• Ambiguity: Reforming the law to restrict murder to direct intention would create challenges in cases where indirect intention is evident. Intoxication or other states affecting mental capacity complicate the determination of intent. The tests established in Moloney, Nedrick, and Woollin provide a necessary framework for understanding varying degrees of intent beyond a direct purpose to kill.

Paragraph 3: Doctrines of Coincidence and Transferred Malice

Coincidence and Transferred Malice:

◦ Thabo Meli (1954): The case established that a series of acts intended to achieve a specific result (e.g., causing harm) can still result in a murder conviction if the ultimate consequence (death) is achieved, even if not directly intended.

◦ AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994): Clarified that transferred malice applies where the defendant’s intent to cause harm transfers from the intended victim to an unintended victim. This case demonstrates that intention can be recognised in cases where the defendant’s target changes, but the mens rea remains the same.

Implications for Reform:

• Complexity in Intent: Restricting murder to cases of direct intention would undermine these principles by failing to account for scenarios where intent is transferred or occurs through a series of actions. The law’s current approach allows for a nuanced understanding of intent that considers the nature and context of the defendant’s actions.

Paragraph 4: Euthanasia and Suicide Pacts

Euthanasia and Suicide Pacts:

• Case Analysis:

◦ R v Wallace (2018): The case involved the defendant who poured acid on the victim, leading to the victim’s decision to seek euthanasia. The court had to consider whether euthanasia could affect the legal causation of murder. The ruling illustrated the complexities involved in cases where the victim’s own actions (e.g., seeking euthanasia) intersect with the defendant’s conduct.

Challenges of Reform:

• Legal and Ethical Issues: Reforming the law to limit murder to cases where the defendant intended death would complicate situations involving euthanasia or suicide pacts. These cases raise ethical and legal questions about the extent of criminal responsibility when the victim’s actions play a significant role in the outcome. A strict intent-to-kill requirement might not adequately address the nuances of these situations.

Conclusion

The statement that murder should only be committed by those who intend their victims to die oversimplifies the complexities of criminal intent and the diverse scenarios that can lead to a murder conviction. The existing legal framework, which includes considerations of intent to cause GBH, indirect intent, and principles such as transferred malice, provides a more nuanced approach to criminal responsibility. While there are arguments for reforming the law to better reflect direct intent, such changes would need to carefully consider the implications for existing legal doctrines and ensure that justice is fairly administered in all cases.