Introduction
This essay examines the definition of murder as articulated by Sir Edward Coke in his *Institutes of the Laws of England* (1797), a foundational text in English criminal law. The purpose is to identify what the prosecution must demonstrate to prove a defendant (D) committed murder, focusing on the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) elements. Additionally, it explores how to interpret the archaic and unusual terms within Coke’s definition. The analysis will draw on established legal principles and academic sources to provide a sound understanding of murder under English law, while acknowledging the historical context of Coke’s writing. This discussion is particularly relevant for understanding the evolution of murder as a crime and its modern legal interpretation.
Proving Murder: Requirements for the Prosecution
To convict a defendant of murder under English law, the prosecution must establish both the actus reus and mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. According to Coke’s definition, murder involves the unlawful killing of a “reasonable creature” under the King’s peace, with “malice aforethought.” While this definition is historical, it underpins modern legal frameworks. The prosecution must show that the defendant caused the death of a human being through an unlawful act, and that this act was intentional or carried a high degree of recklessness regarding the outcome. For instance, a deliberate stabbing resulting in death would generally satisfy these criteria (Smith et al., 2018). Furthermore, historically, death had to occur within a year and a day of the act, though this rule was abolished in the UK under the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.
Actus Reus of Murder
The actus reus of murder, derived from Coke’s definition, includes the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature—interpreted as a human being—under the King’s peace, meaning within the jurisdiction and legal protection of the state. This element requires evidence of causation, demonstrating that the defendant’s act directly led to the victim’s death. For example, if D shoots V and V dies from the wound, the prosecution must link the shooting to the death through medical or forensic evidence. The phrase “unlawfully killeth” excludes killings justified by law, such as self-defence or execution (Ormerod and Laird, 2021). Therefore, the actus reus focuses on the physical act and its consequence within a legal context.
Mens Rea of Murder
The mens rea, or mental element, in Coke’s definition is encapsulated by “malice aforethought,” which refers to an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This can be express (a clear intent to kill) or implied (an intent inferred from the act’s nature, such as using a deadly weapon). Modern law upholds this principle, requiring the prosecution to prove intent or foresight of serious harm, as established in cases like *R v Cunningham* [1982] AC 566 (Smith et al., 2018). Indeed, this subjective test ensures that mere recklessness is insufficient unless paired with a clear understanding of likely outcomes.
Interpreting Unusual Terms in Coke’s Definition
Coke’s text contains archaic language such as “reasonable creature rerum natura” and “King’s peace,” which require careful interpretation. To define these terms, one should consult historical legal texts and academic commentaries on English common law. “Reasonable creature” likely refers to a human being, distinguishing humans from animals, while “rerum natura” (Latin for “in the nature of things”) reinforces this natural classification. “King’s peace” denotes the realm’s legal protection, historically tied to the monarch’s authority. Accessing resources like the *Oxford English Dictionary* for etymology or legal histories such as Pollock and Maitland’s *The History of English Law* (1895) can clarify these meanings. Additionally, modern textbooks on criminal law often provide glossaries or contextual explanations for such terms (Ormerod and Laird, 2021). Consulting primary sources or digitised archives of Coke’s *Institutes* via academic databases like HeinOnline could further illuminate his intent.
Conclusion
In summary, to prove murder, the prosecution must establish the actus reus—unlawful killing of a human under legal jurisdiction—and the mens rea, expressed as malice aforethought or intent to cause serious harm. Coke’s definition, though historical, remains a cornerstone of murder law, with its elements largely preserved in modern statutes and case law. Understanding unusual terms requires engaging with legal history and authoritative texts to bridge historical and contemporary contexts. This exploration not only clarifies the legal requirements for murder but also highlights the evolution of criminal law, underscoring the importance of historical perspectives in legal studies. Such an approach ensures a comprehensive grasp of foundational concepts, which is vital for applying them to current legal challenges.
References
- Ormerod, D. and Laird, K. (2021) *Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law*. 16th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Smith, J.C., Hogan, B. and Ormerod, D. (2018) *Criminal Law*. 15th edn. Oxford University Press.
