It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in England may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an article on UK law, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has no place in this article. Even if it did, a lengthy quotation of the text of an act of marginal relevance to the overall topic is inappropriate -- it could be perceived as giving undue weight to an issue which has little political relevance in the EU. Prior to deleting it from this article, I added the text to the article on the act itself, which lacked it for some inexplicable reason. I am re-deleting boldly. Robert A.West ( Talk) 03:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an editing war as to which is the more appropriate term - actus reus or mens rea. Should we freeze the article? Erik-the-red ( talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems worth mentioning, that doctors can claim double effect as an alibi when accused of murder, something established in the Bodkin Adams trial (1957). Usually, motive is not an excuse for murder - but if a doctor is trying to kill pain it is. Hence it's a notable caveat. Could someone with more specialist knowledge of law fit this in?? Thanks. Malick78 ( talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The article says that "why one person kills could only have relevance in the sentencing phase of a trial". What it should actually say is something to the effect that the motive of the accussed is irrelevant to liability for murder, unless (assuming this is a question of motive) it establishes a defence of justifiable homicide or provocation or suicide pact. Why a person kills is relevant if they are killing in self defence or etc. James500 ( talk) 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is some stuff in "summary style" at murder. We had to delete it there, so I'm putting it here so you can incorporate it. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
{{for2|a general discussion of the law of murder|[[murder]]}} In [[English law]], the definition of murder is: :The unlawful killing of a human being, under the [[Queen's Peace]], with "[[malice aforethought]]". Contrast this with the original definition by [[Sir Edward Coke]] CJ in 1597 of: {{quote|Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in ''rerum natura'' under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same.}} Note that it is no longer necessary for the victim to die within a year and a day of the offence,<ref>[[Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996]], s1</ref> nor for the victim to be a reasonable creature. Specific statutory instances of situations where death is caused are: * [[Infanticide]] - Under s1 [[Infanticide Act 1938]], the intentional killing of an infant under 1-year-old by a mother suffering from post-natal depression or other post-natal disturbance represents an early form of [[diminished responsibility in English law|diminished responsibility]] defence and * Causing [[death by dangerous driving]] (of a motor vehicle) was introduced because [[jury|jurors]], many of whom were drivers, thought the charge of manslaughter to carry too great a level of stigma for the degree of fault actually shown by some drivers and refused to convict when the charge was manslaughter. Now ''[[motor manslaughter]]'' is considered an acceptable charge for the more seriously dangerous examples of driving resulting in death, with [[TWOC|aggravated TWOC]] for the least seriously dangerous driving resulting in death. The aggravated form of criminal damage, including [[arson]], under s1(2) [[Criminal Damage Act 1971]] could be the anticipatory offence rather than a charge of [[attempt]]ed murder. Any other killing would be considered either [[manslaughter in English law]] or an accident. * Voluntary manslaughter is murder mitigated to manslaughter by virtue of the statutory defences under the [[Homicide Act 1957]], namely [[provocation in English law|provocation]], [[diminished responsibility in English law|diminished responsibility]] or [[suicide pact]]. * Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another person whether by act or omission either while committing an unlawful act (known as ''constructive manslaughter'') or by gross negligence. [[English Law]] also allows for [[transferred intent|transferred malice]]. For example, where a man fires a gun with the intent to kill person A but the shot misses and kills an otherwise unconnected person B, the intent to kill transfers from person A to person B and a charge of murder would stand. The accused could also be charged with the [[attempted murder]] of A. As to ''[[mens rea]]'', the model direction to be given to juries for [[intention in English law]] following ''R v. Woollin'',<ref>[http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd980722/wool.htm House of Lords - Regina ''v.'' Woollin<!--Bot-generated title-->]</ref> is a modified version of that proposed by Lord Lane, C.J. in ''R v Nedrick'' [1986] 1 WLR 1025, namely: :Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the [[defendant]] appreciated that such was the case, the decision being for the jury to decide on a consideration of all the evidence. The defences of [[duress in English law|duress]] and [[necessity in English law]] are excluded from murder cases. An exception is ''[[Re A]]'' [2000], a case involving a pair of conjoined twins. However, the judge noted the legal adage that "hard cases make bad law" and recommended that the precedent should not be followed. Another defence is that of [[double effect]]. As established in the 1957 trial of [[John Bodkin Adams|Dr John Bodkin Adams]], causing death through the administration of lethal drugs to a patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, is not considered murder.<ref name="google1"/> Comparatively recent adaptations to the English law of murder include the abolition of the "year and a day rule", and the proposed introduction of a less restrictive regime for [[corporate manslaughter]]. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 177 also advocates a redefinition of murder and a limitation of the scope of manslaughter.<ref>http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp177_web.pdf</ref> {{See also|Born alive rule}}
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
– These articles are inconsistent with all the others in Category:Murder law by country, which all use the format "Murder ([National adjective] law)". I wouldn't object to Homicide (Israeli law) but it is not the only article in the that deals with crimes other than strictly murder (e.g. Murder (Swedish law). Thryduulf ( talk) 09:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I have undone one of your edits. Liability to custody for life depends on age at the time of conviction as well as at the time of the murder. Suppose, for example, that a person is aged 19 when he commits a murder. If he is aged 20 on the date on which he is convicted he will be sentenced to custody for life, as you have written. But if he is aged 22 on the date on which he is convicted, he will not be sentenced to custody for life, as you have it, but will instead be sentenced to imprisonment for life. The reason for the "three bullets" that were employed in the article is that I could not find a way to accurately state this in a single sentence. James500 ( talk) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not understand what the passage in the article meant as it is an error of sense. It should say "sentences" where it says "sentencing". That said it is pointless surplusage. It is obvious that those expressions are legal terms. In addition to that it is potentially misleading because it it seems to suggest that they are different terms for the same thing. They are not.
You are missing the point that the judge is obligated, by the statutes, to pass a certain type of sentence, and that is what the passage was originally about. And you have changed its meaning to something completely different.
Section 90 says that if the offender appears to have been under 18 he must be sentenced to detention during her Majesty's pleasure. It does not say, on its face, that he must be so sentenced if it appears to the court that he might have been under 18.
Section 93 does not say that the offender must appear to the court to have been aged 18 or over. All it says is that he must not be liable to be detained under section 90. That does mean that he must not appear to have been under 18, but it does not, on its face, mean that he must appear to have been 18 or over.
It not clear to me that the court will necessarily be able to the determine how old the offender was. It is not clear to me that the exact date of death will be known if the body has been found after a long time. It is not clear to me that the court will even know the offender's date of birth anyway.
If the age of the offender is not known, he will neither appear to have be aged under 18 nor appear to have been aged 18 or over. If what you were saying was right, it would not be possible to pass any sentence at all in such a case, though I don't think the words of the Act lead to that.
To put it another way, it is not clear to me that "doesn't appear to have been under 18" and "appears to have been 18 or over" are the same thing. James500 ( talk) 07:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I question the need to have changed it in the first place. My understanding is that we don't change the style of an article unless there is a reason to do so. James500 ( talk) 07:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
On the face of it, section 90 does not say that the offender must be sentenced custody for life if it appears that he was over 18. It says he must be sentenced to custody for life unless it appears that he was under 18, which appears to be broader.
Replacing three sentences with one very, very, very long sentence is not, in my opinion, better.
The words "the sentence for murder is mandatory and" would probably be much better than the words preceding "depends". And I agree that the resulting passage would be satisfactory if it was already in the article. But the existing passage is already "exact, precise, concise, and simple" and when I look at what you propose, I'm afraid that I don't see the need for it. James500 ( talk) 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of any source that speaks of "special classes" of victims, or groups the subjects in question together, and none is offered. The material relating to unborn children is part of the definition of the offence and belongs in the section "life in being" out of which it should not have been moved. Infanticide is a partial defence and should be dealt with in the context of the other partial defences (loss of control, diminished resposibilty and suicide pact). James500 ( talk) 06:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It is an original sythesis and an essay. It is also impractical. James500 ( talk) 12:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Our articles should not look like twenty facts out of The Sun. James500 ( talk) 12:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC) In fact, this where one says an encyclopedia does not handle a subject like this in the way that you propose, and that what you propose is not encyclopedic at all but is in fact a complete mess. James500 ( talk) 12:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It is OR. Please provide at least one reliable source that says that these classes of victims are "special", or something that is a close synonym to that, for the purposes, specifically, of the common offence of murder in England and Wales. James500 ( talk) 06:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC) And "newly born" is potentially seriously misleading. The Infanticide Act 1922 referred to the killing a "newly born" child that would otherwise amount to murder. James500 ( talk) 07:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law has a section on "who can be the victim" in its section headed "definition". Something along those lines might be appropriate. James500 ( talk) 07:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
In light of the abolition of felo de se by the Suicide Act 1961, this subject belongs in the section on history, and not where it is now, because suicide is no longer treated as self-murder and an accomplice to suicide is no longer deemed to be guilty of this offence as an accessory. Unless there are proposals to revert that change. James500 ( talk) 14:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is about the common law offence of murder (Murder in English law, emphasis added). It is not about any other offence and it is emphatically not about homicide in general. What you want is an article at a higher level, possibly Homicide in English law or Offence against the person or perhaps a new article. We also already have an article on the Suicide Act 1961 which should contain the bulk of the contemporary material for criminal complicity in suicide as it is an offence under section 2 of that Act.
And so called mercy killings emphatically do constitute the common law offence of murder (short a finding of diminished responsiblity or suicide pact). They are not an exception (or at least they weren't the last time that I checked). Which causes me to wonder why they, in particular, should be described as "special". James500 ( talk) 07:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
And as for people who come to this article to look for a general overview of homicide or the offences of manslaughter and etc., the solution to that is to include suitable hatnotes. James500 ( talk) 08:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I am going to cut the first paragraph of the section headed "Queen's peace". This article is not interested in what the Queen's peace is or isn't. The only thing that it is interested in that respect is in who can and cannot be a victim of this offence, that is to say who is and isn't under the Queen's peace. But it is not interested in the concept of the Queen's peace beyond that and the only further explanation of it that should be provided, beyond who is and isn't protected by it, is a link to the article Queen's peace. The paragraph in question reproduces the introduction to that article, with the exception of the following passage, which might be merged into it:
Also, that passage is wrong in suggesting that breach of the peace is an offence, as opposed to conduct for which their is a power of arrest and bind over (not the same thing). James500 ( talk) 08:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Done with this edit. James500 ( talk) 08:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced the following passage, with this edit, because there was no source cited for it, "mediaeval times" is unacceptably vague, the book by Pollock and Maitland that appears to be the source in the article Outlaw only goes up to "before the time of Edward I", and Historia Placitorum Coronae appears to me to say that after a period of doubt, the killing of outlaws came to be considered to be unlawful.
James500 ( talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed content with this edit as it cited no source and it was not clear to me that it was compatible with what is said in Archbold. James500 ( talk) 09:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Murder in English law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This article asserts that marital coercion was a "statutory defence", which means a statute (act of Parliament or similar) created it. But the article Marital coercion says nothing about such a statute, which leads me to believe it was a common law defence. Hairy Dude ( talk) 04:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
As per the opening sentence, shouldn't the title be "Murder in the law of England and Wales"? Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in England may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an article on UK law, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has no place in this article. Even if it did, a lengthy quotation of the text of an act of marginal relevance to the overall topic is inappropriate -- it could be perceived as giving undue weight to an issue which has little political relevance in the EU. Prior to deleting it from this article, I added the text to the article on the act itself, which lacked it for some inexplicable reason. I am re-deleting boldly. Robert A.West ( Talk) 03:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an editing war as to which is the more appropriate term - actus reus or mens rea. Should we freeze the article? Erik-the-red ( talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems worth mentioning, that doctors can claim double effect as an alibi when accused of murder, something established in the Bodkin Adams trial (1957). Usually, motive is not an excuse for murder - but if a doctor is trying to kill pain it is. Hence it's a notable caveat. Could someone with more specialist knowledge of law fit this in?? Thanks. Malick78 ( talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The article says that "why one person kills could only have relevance in the sentencing phase of a trial". What it should actually say is something to the effect that the motive of the accussed is irrelevant to liability for murder, unless (assuming this is a question of motive) it establishes a defence of justifiable homicide or provocation or suicide pact. Why a person kills is relevant if they are killing in self defence or etc. James500 ( talk) 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is some stuff in "summary style" at murder. We had to delete it there, so I'm putting it here so you can incorporate it. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
{{for2|a general discussion of the law of murder|[[murder]]}} In [[English law]], the definition of murder is: :The unlawful killing of a human being, under the [[Queen's Peace]], with "[[malice aforethought]]". Contrast this with the original definition by [[Sir Edward Coke]] CJ in 1597 of: {{quote|Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in ''rerum natura'' under the King's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day after the same.}} Note that it is no longer necessary for the victim to die within a year and a day of the offence,<ref>[[Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996]], s1</ref> nor for the victim to be a reasonable creature. Specific statutory instances of situations where death is caused are: * [[Infanticide]] - Under s1 [[Infanticide Act 1938]], the intentional killing of an infant under 1-year-old by a mother suffering from post-natal depression or other post-natal disturbance represents an early form of [[diminished responsibility in English law|diminished responsibility]] defence and * Causing [[death by dangerous driving]] (of a motor vehicle) was introduced because [[jury|jurors]], many of whom were drivers, thought the charge of manslaughter to carry too great a level of stigma for the degree of fault actually shown by some drivers and refused to convict when the charge was manslaughter. Now ''[[motor manslaughter]]'' is considered an acceptable charge for the more seriously dangerous examples of driving resulting in death, with [[TWOC|aggravated TWOC]] for the least seriously dangerous driving resulting in death. The aggravated form of criminal damage, including [[arson]], under s1(2) [[Criminal Damage Act 1971]] could be the anticipatory offence rather than a charge of [[attempt]]ed murder. Any other killing would be considered either [[manslaughter in English law]] or an accident. * Voluntary manslaughter is murder mitigated to manslaughter by virtue of the statutory defences under the [[Homicide Act 1957]], namely [[provocation in English law|provocation]], [[diminished responsibility in English law|diminished responsibility]] or [[suicide pact]]. * Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another person whether by act or omission either while committing an unlawful act (known as ''constructive manslaughter'') or by gross negligence. [[English Law]] also allows for [[transferred intent|transferred malice]]. For example, where a man fires a gun with the intent to kill person A but the shot misses and kills an otherwise unconnected person B, the intent to kill transfers from person A to person B and a charge of murder would stand. The accused could also be charged with the [[attempted murder]] of A. As to ''[[mens rea]]'', the model direction to be given to juries for [[intention in English law]] following ''R v. Woollin'',<ref>[http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd980722/wool.htm House of Lords - Regina ''v.'' Woollin<!--Bot-generated title-->]</ref> is a modified version of that proposed by Lord Lane, C.J. in ''R v Nedrick'' [1986] 1 WLR 1025, namely: :Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the [[defendant]] appreciated that such was the case, the decision being for the jury to decide on a consideration of all the evidence. The defences of [[duress in English law|duress]] and [[necessity in English law]] are excluded from murder cases. An exception is ''[[Re A]]'' [2000], a case involving a pair of conjoined twins. However, the judge noted the legal adage that "hard cases make bad law" and recommended that the precedent should not be followed. Another defence is that of [[double effect]]. As established in the 1957 trial of [[John Bodkin Adams|Dr John Bodkin Adams]], causing death through the administration of lethal drugs to a patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, is not considered murder.<ref name="google1"/> Comparatively recent adaptations to the English law of murder include the abolition of the "year and a day rule", and the proposed introduction of a less restrictive regime for [[corporate manslaughter]]. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 177 also advocates a redefinition of murder and a limitation of the scope of manslaughter.<ref>http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp177_web.pdf</ref> {{See also|Born alive rule}}
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
– These articles are inconsistent with all the others in Category:Murder law by country, which all use the format "Murder ([National adjective] law)". I wouldn't object to Homicide (Israeli law) but it is not the only article in the that deals with crimes other than strictly murder (e.g. Murder (Swedish law). Thryduulf ( talk) 09:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I have undone one of your edits. Liability to custody for life depends on age at the time of conviction as well as at the time of the murder. Suppose, for example, that a person is aged 19 when he commits a murder. If he is aged 20 on the date on which he is convicted he will be sentenced to custody for life, as you have written. But if he is aged 22 on the date on which he is convicted, he will not be sentenced to custody for life, as you have it, but will instead be sentenced to imprisonment for life. The reason for the "three bullets" that were employed in the article is that I could not find a way to accurately state this in a single sentence. James500 ( talk) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not understand what the passage in the article meant as it is an error of sense. It should say "sentences" where it says "sentencing". That said it is pointless surplusage. It is obvious that those expressions are legal terms. In addition to that it is potentially misleading because it it seems to suggest that they are different terms for the same thing. They are not.
You are missing the point that the judge is obligated, by the statutes, to pass a certain type of sentence, and that is what the passage was originally about. And you have changed its meaning to something completely different.
Section 90 says that if the offender appears to have been under 18 he must be sentenced to detention during her Majesty's pleasure. It does not say, on its face, that he must be so sentenced if it appears to the court that he might have been under 18.
Section 93 does not say that the offender must appear to the court to have been aged 18 or over. All it says is that he must not be liable to be detained under section 90. That does mean that he must not appear to have been under 18, but it does not, on its face, mean that he must appear to have been 18 or over.
It not clear to me that the court will necessarily be able to the determine how old the offender was. It is not clear to me that the exact date of death will be known if the body has been found after a long time. It is not clear to me that the court will even know the offender's date of birth anyway.
If the age of the offender is not known, he will neither appear to have be aged under 18 nor appear to have been aged 18 or over. If what you were saying was right, it would not be possible to pass any sentence at all in such a case, though I don't think the words of the Act lead to that.
To put it another way, it is not clear to me that "doesn't appear to have been under 18" and "appears to have been 18 or over" are the same thing. James500 ( talk) 07:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I question the need to have changed it in the first place. My understanding is that we don't change the style of an article unless there is a reason to do so. James500 ( talk) 07:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
On the face of it, section 90 does not say that the offender must be sentenced custody for life if it appears that he was over 18. It says he must be sentenced to custody for life unless it appears that he was under 18, which appears to be broader.
Replacing three sentences with one very, very, very long sentence is not, in my opinion, better.
The words "the sentence for murder is mandatory and" would probably be much better than the words preceding "depends". And I agree that the resulting passage would be satisfactory if it was already in the article. But the existing passage is already "exact, precise, concise, and simple" and when I look at what you propose, I'm afraid that I don't see the need for it. James500 ( talk) 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of any source that speaks of "special classes" of victims, or groups the subjects in question together, and none is offered. The material relating to unborn children is part of the definition of the offence and belongs in the section "life in being" out of which it should not have been moved. Infanticide is a partial defence and should be dealt with in the context of the other partial defences (loss of control, diminished resposibilty and suicide pact). James500 ( talk) 06:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It is an original sythesis and an essay. It is also impractical. James500 ( talk) 12:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Our articles should not look like twenty facts out of The Sun. James500 ( talk) 12:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC) In fact, this where one says an encyclopedia does not handle a subject like this in the way that you propose, and that what you propose is not encyclopedic at all but is in fact a complete mess. James500 ( talk) 12:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It is OR. Please provide at least one reliable source that says that these classes of victims are "special", or something that is a close synonym to that, for the purposes, specifically, of the common offence of murder in England and Wales. James500 ( talk) 06:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC) And "newly born" is potentially seriously misleading. The Infanticide Act 1922 referred to the killing a "newly born" child that would otherwise amount to murder. James500 ( talk) 07:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law has a section on "who can be the victim" in its section headed "definition". Something along those lines might be appropriate. James500 ( talk) 07:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
In light of the abolition of felo de se by the Suicide Act 1961, this subject belongs in the section on history, and not where it is now, because suicide is no longer treated as self-murder and an accomplice to suicide is no longer deemed to be guilty of this offence as an accessory. Unless there are proposals to revert that change. James500 ( talk) 14:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is about the common law offence of murder (Murder in English law, emphasis added). It is not about any other offence and it is emphatically not about homicide in general. What you want is an article at a higher level, possibly Homicide in English law or Offence against the person or perhaps a new article. We also already have an article on the Suicide Act 1961 which should contain the bulk of the contemporary material for criminal complicity in suicide as it is an offence under section 2 of that Act.
And so called mercy killings emphatically do constitute the common law offence of murder (short a finding of diminished responsiblity or suicide pact). They are not an exception (or at least they weren't the last time that I checked). Which causes me to wonder why they, in particular, should be described as "special". James500 ( talk) 07:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
And as for people who come to this article to look for a general overview of homicide or the offences of manslaughter and etc., the solution to that is to include suitable hatnotes. James500 ( talk) 08:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I am going to cut the first paragraph of the section headed "Queen's peace". This article is not interested in what the Queen's peace is or isn't. The only thing that it is interested in that respect is in who can and cannot be a victim of this offence, that is to say who is and isn't under the Queen's peace. But it is not interested in the concept of the Queen's peace beyond that and the only further explanation of it that should be provided, beyond who is and isn't protected by it, is a link to the article Queen's peace. The paragraph in question reproduces the introduction to that article, with the exception of the following passage, which might be merged into it:
Also, that passage is wrong in suggesting that breach of the peace is an offence, as opposed to conduct for which their is a power of arrest and bind over (not the same thing). James500 ( talk) 08:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Done with this edit. James500 ( talk) 08:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced the following passage, with this edit, because there was no source cited for it, "mediaeval times" is unacceptably vague, the book by Pollock and Maitland that appears to be the source in the article Outlaw only goes up to "before the time of Edward I", and Historia Placitorum Coronae appears to me to say that after a period of doubt, the killing of outlaws came to be considered to be unlawful.
James500 ( talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed content with this edit as it cited no source and it was not clear to me that it was compatible with what is said in Archbold. James500 ( talk) 09:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Murder in English law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This article asserts that marital coercion was a "statutory defence", which means a statute (act of Parliament or similar) created it. But the article Marital coercion says nothing about such a statute, which leads me to believe it was a common law defence. Hairy Dude ( talk) 04:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
As per the opening sentence, shouldn't the title be "Murder in the law of England and Wales"? Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)