Elements Of Murder

Murder Assignment

Alvin is facing a murder charge under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11 which states that ‘any person who commits murder shall be guilty of an offence and shall be imprisoned for life’.

Conduct Elements (Actus Reus)

Voluntariness

Under the common law established in He Kaw The v The Queen , only voluntary conduct can give rise to criminal liability . In contemplating whether Alvin’s actions were voluntary, there are three considerations to be addressed; if the criminal act was accidental, caused by a reflex action or if the conduct was performed while the accused was in a state of impaired consciousness. Alvin has alleged that the initial incident of him stabbing his wife, Vanna, occurred due to him losing

The Prosecution may argue that Alvin’s words “You are dead to me” made immediately prior to the stabbing, whilst the accused and the victim were engaged in a heated argument, along with the accused laughing after the stabbing, suggest that Alvin intended to kill Vanna. However, in Alvin’s statement to the police he has acknowledged that he intented to scare Vanna rather than stab her, and the witness statements that Alvin said the words “I’m sorry” whilst carrying her through the door, along with his assertion that he was seeking medical assistance for her, would support Alvin’s claims that he did not intent to kill Vanna and may encourage reasonable doubt that he held this intention.

If the prosecution us unable to prove Alvin intended to kill Vanna, the offence may still be made out if it can be shown that he intended to cause grevious bodily

Applying Thabo Meli v R , there must have been a preconceived plan to murder Vanna. It is possible to argue that Alvin possessed the necessary Mens Rea when he stabbed Vanna in the neck, but not when he knocked her head on the wall, which was the substantial cause of death. However, it could also be argued that as the stabbing and the head knock were part of the same sequence of events, actus reus and mens rea should be found to have coincided, according to the unbinding, persuasive English case of R v Le Brun