HOMICIDE: MURDER

TOPIC OF THE DAY

- ELEMENTS OF MURDER: ACTUS REUS

- THE MENS REA FOR MURDER

- CONSTRUCTIVE MALICE AND RECKLESSNESS

- WHO AND WHAT CAUSES KILLING

- FACTUAL CAUSATION

- LEGAL CAUSATION

- NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

Elements of Murder: Actus Reus

Actus reus refers to the physical act of committing murder. In Nigeria, this involves unlawfully causing the death of another person. See section 316 of the Criminal Code Act (CCA) which defines murder as causing the death of a person with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing grievous harm and section 319 of the Criminal Code Act (CCA) which outlines the punishment for murder in Nigeria, stating that anyone found guilty of murder shall be sentenced to death.

Mens Rea for Murder

Mens rea refers to the mental state or intention behind the act. For murder, the mens rea requires specific intent or malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is the intention to cause death or grievous harm. The Nigerian legal system recognizes different forms of mens rea, including:

1. Express Malice: This involves a clear intention to kill, such as premeditated murder.

2. Implied Malice: Implied malice refers to situations where the circumstances surrounding the act indicate an intention to kill, even if there was no premeditation. An example could be killing someone during the commission of a felony.

3. Constructive Malice: Constructive malice is an important concept in Nigerian law. It applies when the defendant commits an act likely to cause death or grievous harm without justification or excuse, showing a reckless disregard for human life.

Constructive Malice and Recklessness

Constructive malice is closely related to recklessness, which involves consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that results in harm. In Nigerian law, recklessness can lead to a finding of constructive malice in murder cases. See the case of R v. Akalezi (1962) where the defendant stabbed the victim during a fight. The court held that the defendant's actions exhibited constructive malice because he acted recklessly, knowing that his actions could result in death or grievous harm.

Who and What Causes Killing?

Murder is often motivated by a myriad of factors, including but not limited to revenge, jealousy, greed, and even mental illness. Understanding the motivations behind murders helps authorities in apprehending perpetrators and bringing them to justice. See the case of R v. Ijokumu (1961) 1 ALL NLR 127, where the accused murdered his wife out of jealousy. This illustrates how emotions can drive individuals to commit heinous acts.

Factual Causation

Factual causation in murder cases hinges on proving that the accused's actions directly led to the victim's death. See the case of R v. Smith (1959) 2 QB 35, where the defendant stabbed the victim, causing injuries that ultimately led to death. The defendant was found guilty because his actions were deemed the factual cause of death.

Legal Causation

Legal causation delves into whether the accused's actions were the substantial and operating cause of death, as per Nigerian law. See the case of R v. Akpan (1964) 1 All NLR 492, where the defendant fatally wounded the victim, but it was the delayed medical treatment due to inadequate healthcare facilities that led to death. The court held that the defendant's actions were the legal cause of death, emphasizing the chain of events initiated by the defendant's actions.

Novus Actus Interveniens

Novus actus interveniens refers to a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the victim's death. See the case of R v. Amao (1963) 3 All NLR 233, where the defendant stabbed the victim, but the victim's decision to refuse medical treatment constituted a novus actus interveniens. As a result, the defendant was not held liable for murder since the victim's actions severed the causal link.