The Current State of Murder in English Law : A Critique, Wrong Turns and All

In chapter four, ‘The current state of murder in English law: a critique, wrong turns and all’, Dr J.J. Child and Professor G.R. Sullivan explore the offence of murder in the context of its uniquely draconian mandatory sentence. The chapter highlights the normative restraints that such a sentence imposes; criticising the current law for its failure to maintain a narrow definition. In Part 1, the authors discuss the primary route to murder liability, where a defendant (D1) acts as a principal agent, highlighting the inappropriate breadth of current mens rea requirements in particular. In Part 2, discussion switches to the secondary route to murder liability, where D2 commits murder as the accomplice of D1. Focusing upon the recent landmark Supreme Court case of Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, the authors discuss and generally welcome the court’s ambition to narrow accomplice liability in murder to require something approaching a parity of culpability between D1 and D2. However, they also highlight conflicts and uncertainties within the judgment that threaten to undermine its potential in narrowing liability, including (a) uncertainty as to whether D2 must intend D1 to commit murder, (b) the use of conditional intention, and (c) assumptions around manslaughter as an alternative or back-up to murder. Across these alternative routes to murder liability, the chapter contends that liability should be interpreted narrowly and consistently and offers some guidance on associated reform