Murder: AR: unlawful killing of a human being (Coke) - Applied in Moloney - Intention to kill or cause gbh

Unlawful killing: He was of sound mind and would be legally responsible for the fire. 

A human being? The child must be wholly expelled from the mother and have independent circulation. Dependent on the facts of whether the baby ever had independent circulation.(AG Reference No. 3 of 1994)  If not, it’s likely they would not constitute a ‘human being’ for these purposes. 

Causation: Factual causation (White): But for Jim starting the fire, would Jodie’s baby have died? No. Legal causation: Was Jim’s conduct an operating and substantial cause of death (Smith): YES

MR: Intention: Oblique intention: must be a foresight of virtual certainty that either GBH or murder would occur as a result of Jim lighting the fire. He believed that he would be able to raise the alarm to prevent the fire from injuring Jodie or her baby so subjectively, he was not virtually certain GHB or death would occur. 

Possibly involuntary manslaughter due to lack of intention. AG Reference 3 1994

Jodie:

Murder: AR: unlawful killing of a human being. Death= brain stem death- Jodie still had some activity.

Unlawful killing: Yes No

s18 Intention to cause gbh - Definition Serious harm (Saunders; DPP v Smith) CPS Charging Standards - life changing injuries and substantial and sustained medical treatment. 

Human Being: Yes

Causation: Factual (white): But for Jim’s conduct, would Jodie have sustained the injuries? No

Legal causation: Was Jim’s conduct an operating and substantial cause of death (Smith): YES

MR: Oblique intention: must be a foresight of virtual certainty that either GBH or murder would occur as a result of Jim lighting the fire and that he appreciated such was the case (Woollin). He believed that he would be able to raise the alarm to prevent the fire from injuring Jodie so he was not virtually certain GHB would occur. (Defence's argument) Prosecution would argue - that if you put a lighted rag through a letter box, it is virtually certain that serious harm will result (Nedrick; Hyam).

o   Amy – Murder

§  Actus Reus – unlawfully kills another the king’s person

·       Unlawfully – self-defence not allowed

·       Killeth – involves causation

·       Any ‘reasonble creature’ - Only if a foetus/child has ‘an existence independent of its mother’ is it capable of being murdered. 

o   Jim did not do the action in self-defence and the defendant is a born-living human

§  Causation

·       Factual causation

o   White – ‘but for’ test

§  BUT FOR the actions of Jim, would the death of Amy occurred? = Yes

·       Legal causation – Two key requirements

o   The defendant’s conduct must be a more than minimal cause (the “de minimis” principle)

o   There must be no “breaks in the chain of causation” from later events or behaviour.

§  Evolution of the de minimus principle

·       “operating & substantial cause” Smith [1959]

·       “contributed significantly to the result” Paget [1983]

·       “significant contribution” = “more than negligible” Cheshire [1991]

·       “more than minimal” Kimsey [1996]

o   Jim’s action did have a significant contribution to the death of Amy as it was his action that resulted in the fire, which meant that the fire service had to come out.

§  Thin Egg Shell Rule

·       Amy, on the facts, was healthy and did not have any pre-existing medical conditions which may have contributed or accelerated the blood clot in her brain

§  3^rd party intervention (pagett)

·       “if an act of a third party is relied upon as breaking the chain, the act of the third party must have been “free, deliberate and informed”.

o   Fire service

o   Free: 

§  It could be argued that the choices of the firemen were limited or non-existent due to the deteriorating situation they were in. 

o   Deliberate: 

§  It could be argued that the fire service made a deliberate choice to carry Amy in the way she was carried and choosing the route in which to take Amy out of the house based on the situation they were in

o   Informed:

§  It could be argued that the situation may have limited the logical reasoning of the fireman of how they should approach their conduct as they had to save the victims as soon as possible

§  However, it could be argued that they had training to make informed decisions in such circumstances - obvious

§  Improper medical treatement
Defence - Jordan - Palpably wrong treatment, smith - thoroughly bad.

·      Prosecution -  Cheshire [1991] 

o   Negligent medical treatment will only break the chain in “the most extraordinary and unusual  case     

·       The question is, whether “the negligent  treatment was so independent of his (the accused’s) acts & in itself so potent in causing death that the contribution made by the accused could be regarded as insignificant

o   It could be argued that the actions of Jim could be regarded as insignificant when considering the conduct of the paramedic as the fire service’s act in carrying amy to safety may have broken the chain of causation

o   Amy died as a result of the blood clot, not because of a fire-related incident

§  Mens rea

·       D intends to cause death or GBH to V

o   ‘Malice aforethought’ means intention to kill or cause GBH.  

o   Jim did not intend to cause death or GBH to Amy

o   In conclusion, Jim may not be liable for murder as the Mens rea element is not satisfied. Furthermore, the intervening act of the fire service and the paramedics may have broke the chain of causation.