R v Vickers
An intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient mens rea for murder.
Facts
Mr Vickers broke into a shop at night to steal money. The elderly woman who lived above the shop came down and found him, and he hit her several times and kicked her in the face. She died from her injuries. He was convicted of murder. He argued that after the Homicide Act 1957 abolished the doctrine of constructive malice, an intention to cause grievous bodily harm was no longer enough for murder.
Legal principle
The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld his conviction. Section 1 of the Homicide Act 1957 abolished constructive malice, which had made a killing in the course of a felony murder, but it did not abolish implied malice, the rule that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient for murder. Lord Goddard CJ said that a person who intends to cause grievous bodily harm and causes death is guilty of murder. The rule was confirmed by the House of Lords in R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566.
Related cases on murder and voluntary manslaughter
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889
- R v Asmelash [2013] EWCA Crim 157, [2014] QB 103
- R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
- R v Challen [2019] EWCA Crim 916
- R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2, [2013] QB 1
- R v Dawes; R v Hatter; R v Bowyer [2013] EWCA Crim 322, [2014] 1 WLR 947
- R v Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10, [2003] 1 AC 1209
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
