- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Vickers (1957) CA
During D's burglary of V's shop, D was discovered by V, whereupon D
struck V with several blows. V eventually died from shock due to general
injuries.
Held D was guilty of murder, because:
... he has killed a person with the necessary malice aforethought being implied
from the fact that he intended to do grievous bodily harm ... in considering the
construction of s 1(1) [of the Homicide Act 1957], it is impossible to say that the
doing of grievous bodily harm is the other offence which is referred to in the
first line and a half of the sub-section [that is, which abolishes constructive
malice. It must be shown that independently of the fact that the accused is
committing another offence, that the act which caused the death was done with
malice aforethought as implied by law Iper Lord Goddard CJ].
During D's burglary of V's shop, D was discovered by V, whereupon D
struck V with several blows. V eventually died from shock due to general
injuries.
Held D was guilty of murder, because:
... he has killed a person with the necessary malice aforethought being implied
from the fact that he intended to do grievous bodily harm ... in considering the
construction of s 1(1) [of the Homicide Act 1957], it is impossible to say that the
doing of grievous bodily harm is the other offence which is referred to in the
first line and a half of the sub-section [that is, which abolishes constructive
malice. It must be shown that independently of the fact that the accused is
committing another offence, that the act which caused the death was done with
malice aforethought as implied by law Iper Lord Goddard CJ].
0 Comments