Talk:Murder in English law

Discussion of US Law inappropriate to this article

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)

Well, you have crystalised the point of disagreement. All laws benefit from the ideas adopted in other jurisdictions. It is common in cases of potential controversy that both academic and practitioner lawyers expressly refer to other laws as I did here. In this instance, it is highly material to consider the U.S. approach which is an interesting application of transferred malice. I will draft a short commentary that refers readers to the text of the statute which I hope you will respect. I can assure you that the issue is of considerable interest within the EU and, as you can see from the case which I cited, the subject of litigation. David91 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If there are actual proposals to change UK law similarly to the US law, a discussion of those proposals would be most informative -- to me at least. Given that the US retains the Felony murder rule and seems more comfortable with transferred intent than the UK (at least if I may judge by the AG's characterization of them as "outdated fictions"), would such a law take different form in the UK? The fact that abortion is a hot-button issue in the US delayed passage of such a measure for many years and made it controversial. How does the situation in the UK compare? Thanks! Robert A.West (Talk) 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion the issue in two different contexts. At a policy level in the UK, the Law Commission has been engaging in extensive consultation as to whether codification of the law of homicide is practical, so all aspects of the law of murder have been discussed in the light of the current cultural contexts. As I have indicated in the compromise wording tendered on the article page, the U.S. approach is considered interesting but unlikely to be adopted. But, within the EU, there is major debate as to the scope of the framework of human rights and whether it should offer protection to the uterine child. After all, as but one example, it is legitimate to ask what the right to life is worth if it is denied to a uterine child? Although obtaining a value free answer to such questions is difficult. The questions are becoming for pointed of late because some of the EU Member States are shifting to the right, e.g. in Poland, and there is concern that the broad framework of protections is being undermined or distorted. You should understand that, within the EU, we routinely consider each others laws and the policies that underpin then because, in the longer term, we are moving towards some degree of harmonisation.

Same thing in the U.S. State legislatures copy from one another -- the suspicion that they copy only one another's mistakes is at least partly waggish. To be honest, I mistook the citation without discussion of the law as an instance of US-POV pushing. I hope my edits were helpful and welcome, and I believe I am correct that the law enshrines a legal fiction, rather than granding personhood status to the foetus. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I always value comments on what I write. I am old and frequently miss things because I "don't see so good no more". So, of course, I have valued your concerns. As to the wording of the Act, we have to refer back to "(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." So the death of the child is charged as a separate offence and punished under 2C. Hence, I have adjusted the wording to show us both correct. I hope that works for you. David91 05:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nay, my lord, when you are a dotard, you will die." -- J.R.R. Tolkien Seriously, the separate offense rule applies to both 2A and 2C. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I just shows how pathetic my ability to communicate has become because I thought was was what I said. Yes, we agree. Do you want me to redraft the dicsussion for transferred mailice? David91 05:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Check my edit. See what you think. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit War - Actus Reus vs. Mens Rea

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)

John Bodkin Adams

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)

Mens rea

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)

Please incorporate this material

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}}

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Murder in English law → Murder (English law)
• Homicide in Israeli law → Murder (Israeli law)

– 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)

• I think that Homicide (Israeli law) is a better location. The other articles that are not confined to murder (such as Murder (Swedish law) and Murder (German law)) should be moved to more appropriate locations. James500 (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose the page name Murder (Israeli law) for a page which includes offences other than murder. The collective term for murder, manslaughter and infanticide in English law (from which Israeli law is partly derived) is "homicide", so it is not a "contrived original name" either (see e.g. Card, Cross and Jones: Criminal Law and chapter 19 of Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice). James500 (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:PRECISION discourages the use of these parenthetical disambiguators, which appear to be unnecessary here. Kauffner (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not true that WP:PRECISION discourages the use of parenthetical disambiguators. It notes parenthetical as well as natural disambiguators are used. But the examples for the natural disambiguator, like English language, imply that natural in the context of natural disambiguator means terminology that is normally and commonly used in English. "Murder in English law" is not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Parenthetical disambigution should be use only if natural disambiguation is "not possible." That's pretty strong discouragement. But I have thought of a better reason to oppose this RM. The problem is not that the word "murder" is ambiguous. These are subarticles. That's not what parenthetical disambiguators are for. It is the equivalent of having an article about the population of the U.S. at "United States (population)" Kauffner (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. For named entities, the name (disambiguated if necessary, as is the case here) is preferable to a contrived original name. Also, consistent with Murder (United States law), Murder (Canadian law), Murder (German law), etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  What named entities are you thinking these articles are about? Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  Murder, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  So the legal term murder is a named entity, as opposed to the generic noun murder? How would we know which the article is about? Oh, wait, we already have the article Murder on the generic concept. I see, "Murder (English law)" is a way of using parenthetical disambig, when you don't have to. I guess we need a formula that quantifies how bad that is, relative to using a more "descriptive" title? Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

  How about Murder (offence under the common law of England and Wales)? I think that I could accurately write "murder is the name of an offence under the common law of England and Wales". I think that page name would exclude capital murder which I think was a statutory offence under section 5 of the Homicide Act 1957. James500 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

  That's a really long disambiguator. You would rather this awkward title than sacrifice the parenthesis? Kauffner (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  I was only making a suggestion, and I pointed out a possible problem with it. I have not decided what I think the title of this article should be. There are other pages that end with "in English law" or that take the form "English ... law", and I would prefer to leave this article where it is unless and until proper rules for naming these articles have been worked out. James500 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) I do not consider the creation of such rules to be a particularly high priority either. James500 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for Israeli law—the article is clear not about just murder, but all types of homicide, so renaming to murder would be clearly wrong. Regarding the parentheses, I don't think it matters much, but Homicide in Israeli law seems like a much more intuitive title. Maybe the other articles in the "series" should be renamed in a similar fashion instead of vice versa. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting renaming others to, e.g. Murder in German law, Murder in United States law, etc? Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – title "Murder (English law)" would suggest that the topic is an English law called "Murder". I don't think that's the actual topic; it's more about how murder is treated in English law, and the present title conveys that idea clearly already, doesn't it? Oppose the other for the same reason. And fix all those other countries with odd titles for their articles on murder, too. The apparent otherwise consistency of the category is due to the fact that most of the articles were created last year by User:Agradman, and have had little notice since then; and they're mostly without any support from secondary sources, too. Dicklyon (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and also for Israeli law - not only is the current title far more natural, but to anyone used to Wikipedia disambiguation titles, the proposed new title makes it sound like we are talking about a kind of murder which is an English law, as opposed to, well, "Murder in English law". There may be an argument for moving it to "Murder in the law of England and Wales", I suppose. If anything the other articles referred to should be moved to a title similar to this one. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legal terms and sentencing

Copying this from User talk:FT2#Murder in English law to centralize discussion and allow others to comment.

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 re-checked sources and edited. This did indeed match the law and I checked the law too, the edited version exactly matched the above and also the relevant law. However the following concerns were then raised:

The sources do not say that these sentences are "legal terms". I have never heard that expression used in this context. In light of its usual meaning, I do not think it is a good idea to use it in that article.

The sources are also phrased as commands. The word "used" seems to me to suggest that these commands are, in actuality, always followed. The sources are not capable of supporting that. Conversely, that word does not seem to me to clearly indicate that there is a command in the first place. And it is the command, and not the practice, that the article is concerned with. I used the word "must" because there is a case that says that "'shall' means 'must' not 'may'". Archbold and Halsbury also use it.

I am not convinced that custody for life and imprisonment for life are available only if it "appears to the court" that the offender was aged 18 or over at the time of the murder. Just looking at the face words of the Act, I think that they might be available in a case where the court has no idea how old the convicted person was at the time of the murder, and only knows that he is now under or over 21. I think that we would be wanting to cite a case on that point before saying something like that.

I think that "perpetrator" is not usually used in England and Wales and that "offender" is more likely. I might run an advanced search on Legislation.gov.uk to check this.

I don't think that the new style proposed is an improvement in any way at all. In fact, I don't see any need to change the style at all. I am tempted, apart from inaccuracies, to revert the changes to the passages in question with the rationale "purely stylistic change that adds nothing". James500 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Indictment Rules 1971, according to Archbold, have the words "statement of offence" and "particulars of offence" as headings, and not the way you have them, and there is no colon. (Both headings and the actual statement of offence are also supposed to be centered but I do not know how to do that.) James500 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on this:

1. Legal terms are simply, terms with specific legal meanings and used legally. It's also what we use everywhere on Wikipedia to denote terms having a specific legal meaning, for example in articles like List of legal Latin terms, the Category:Legal terms, Category:English legal terms etc, these articles including Glossary of legal terms, and also in the same source you gave for "its usual meaning". Three legal terms are indeed used for murder sentences. They are "detention during Her Majesty's pleasure", "custody for life" and "imprisonment for life", all being the terms used in the law. The law doesn't say "these are legal terms"; they are legal terms because they are in the law. If this is still an issue, please explain.
2. The terms are "used". When a judge sentences for murder, he/she states the person is sentenced to one or more of "detention during Her Majesty's pleasure", "custody for life", or "imprisonment for life" in those words, because those are the terms used in law. Saying 3 terms are used implies of itself there are none others so words like "must" are not needed. The judge isn't "obligated" to use one of them (must) it's more a case the law doesn't contain any forms of wording for the actual sentence for murder other than these 3 terms.
3. Not looking at personal guesses of what one thinks might be available. The cite is the exact wording of the law, which is that for "detention during Her Majesty's pleasure" the criterion is that it "appears to the court" the person was under 18 at the time. That's precise and authoritative as it's the exact statutory statement.
4. Perpetrator/offender - fine, go for it. I imagine once convicted both are accurate and the latter could well be more common. Check, or do as you feel best?
5. Style - can you clarify? My reason for putting all 3 in one sentence is brevity (always valuable in wiki as in law) and simplicity. Your concerns seem to be accuracy based, can we review substance, then discuss if there's still a concern on style?
6. Styling of sample indictments - I had thought the wording was what mattered not the specific layout on the page. Is it significant that it's above/below or left/right, provided we're giving the exact wording that would be used, correctly? I can fix the formatting if so but I question the need.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Point 1.

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.

• Point 2.

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.

• Point 3.

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)

• Point 6.

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)

Point 1 - I agree that "Three different sentences may be passed [or 'exist'] for murder" would be clearer than "Three legal terms are used for sentencing murder". Perhaps changing it to read "The appropriate sentence depends on..." would also help

Point 2 - The same change fixes this, I think.

Point 3 - The Act says:

• (s.90) "Where a person convicted of murder [or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as life imprisonment] appears to the court to have been aged under 18 at the time the offence was committed, the court shall (notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act) sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure."

In other words, the applicable test is that it "appears to the court he/she was under 18 at the time of the crime", and in any and every case where that test is met then the court will, regardless of the other two options, pass a sentence of "detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure".

• (s.93) "Where a person aged under 21 is convicted of murder or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law as imprisonment for life, the court shall sentence him to custody for life unless he is liable to be detained under section 90 above."

In other words, if s.90 does not apply (by definition that means the test it gives was not met, the person does not appear to the court to be under 18, which overrides any other case), then there are two options: A person who factually was under 21 at conviction will be sentenced to "custody for life". A person not meeting that provision is caught by the catch-all of the Murder Act and will be sentenced to life imprisonment.

The law uses "shall" for each of these, the decision lacks discretion. So the offender will receive the stated sentences, and that is what they will be. Surprisingly when I tried a version with and without the reverse condition, the latter was shorter and seemed better to me as well, so I've taken that out here as well. I believe the following is precise, faithful to the law, and concise, and 3 separate lines is overlength by comparison. This is what I ended up with:

• Three different sentences exist [or 'may be passed'] for murder. The appropriate sentence depends upon the age of the offender at the time of the crime or conviction. In any case where the offender appears to the court to have been under 18 at the time of the crime, the sentence must be detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. Otherwise the sentence is custody for life for an offender under 21 at the time of conviction, and imprisonment for life otherwise.

Point 6 - not worth more worry. Do you want me to fix it center aligned?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Point 3.

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.

• Point 6 - yes please. James500 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

6 - ok, will do later.

The rest - both of your concerns relate to a version that I've moved beyond based on your comments. The amended version has short sentences rather than one "very, very, very long" one, and doesn't use the "reverse condition" of "over 18" v. "not under 18":

• Three different sentences exist [or 'may be passed'] for murder. The appropriate sentence depends upon the age of the offender at the time of the crime or conviction. In any case where the offender appears to the court to have been under 18 at the time of the crime, the sentence must be detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. Otherwise the sentence is custody for life for an offender under 21 at the time of conviction, and imprisonment for life otherwise.

I think this is exact, precise, concise, and simple. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Okay - leaving this thread here now we're agreed on the basic point at least. I did take your wording in the article and put the 3 micro-paragraphs into one normal length paragraph and a couple of minor edits for flow. Your wording basically, but I can at least live with it. Hope it's a good enough compromise - leaving this wording here for now to focus back on the Lawrence case itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Added a lead-in sentence based on both our work: "Three different mandatory sentences exist for murder, depending upon the age of the offender at the time of the crime or conviction." Uses my wording to introduce the idea different sentences exist and they depend on age, and yours that the selection is mandatory. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The section on "special classes of victim"

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)

This is where one says, we're an encyclopedia not a lawyer's textbook. The section is for use of general public readers - who may want to easily find specific classes of incident, and see how murder law treats them and where they fit in the definition (if at all). In a legal textbook they would surely be handled in a different way but for an encyclopedia this is a far better (and quite common) treatment since it is related to non-lawyer use. As a generic section it's obvious and capable of handling any other special classes that may be conceived.

An extra section on diminished responsibility (and other sections on other defenses) wouldn't be a bad idea though. That part is sparse. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:56, 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)

Sorry, however thats something we would strongly disagree upon. Synthesis is the misuse of information from multiple sources to advance a position not evident in any of those sources. Categorizing material for an encyclopedia lay-reader in a way that is likely to be useful to them, or cover information that they might reasonably find useful (such as how closely related topics are handled) is common.

You need to read WP:SYNTH and Template:Essay-like. This is neither synthesis or essay, but encyclopedia writing (as opposed to lawyers' textbook writing). We write for a general audience, and that means we anticipate what a general audience might find useful, relevant, or helpful titles and groupings. For example the legal term may be "Life in being" but a member of the public would not find that as helpful as "unborn and newly born children" which explains plainly and intuitively to a non-lawyer the area of murder law involved. The same in other areas. See also below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:34, 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)

Assisted suicide

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)

Again as above. For example while suicide, assisting suicide, mercy killings, and the like are not legally "murder", they are highly relevant in an article on murder law (and not just of historical interest) to explain the law or cover the situation, which may be looked up via murder, or with curiosity as to its relation to murder, or because rulings exist and cases will happen where the court has to decide if a case was murder or assisting suicide (and case by case could be decided between the two by the jury). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:34, 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)

The section headed "Queen's peace"

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:

In more general terms it refers to the normal conditions which all citizens are entitled to enjoy. The term is often encountered in the lesser offences of "breach of the peace" (meaning breaching the Queen's peace) and "disturbing the peace" (various public order offences).

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)

Outlaws

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.

In mediaeval times a person could be declared an outlaw, losing the right to the protection of the monarch's peace.

James500 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cut

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)

External links modified (February 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426034959/http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc290_Partial_Defences_to_Murder.pdf to http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc290_Partial_Defences_to_Murder.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Marital coercion

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)

Article title

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)