Talk:Murder in English law

message: There seems to be an editing war as to which is the more appropriate term - actus reus or mens rea. Should we freeze the article?Erik-the-red (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War - Actus Reus vs. Mens Rea 

message: It seems worth mentioning, that doctors can claim double effect as an alibi when accused of murder, something established in the Bodkin Adams trial (1957). Usually, motive is not an excuse for murder - but if a doctor is trying to kill pain it is. Hence it's a notable caveat. Could someone with more specialist knowledge of law fit this in??  Thanks.  Malick78 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Bodkin Adams]]

message: The article says that "why one person kills could only have relevance in the sentencing phase of a trial". What it should actually say is something to the effect that the motive of the accussed is irrelevant to liability for murder, unless (assuming this is a question of motive) it establishes a defence of justifiable homicide or provocation or suicide pact. Why a person kills is relevant if they are killing in self defence or etc.James500 (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mens rea 

message: In light of the abolition of felo de se by the Suicide Act 1961, this subject belongs in the section on history, and not where it is now, because suicide is no longer treated as self-murder and an accomplice to suicide is no longer deemed to be guilty of this offence as an accessory. Unless there are proposals to revert that change. James500 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Again as above. For example while suicide, assisting suicide, mercy killings, and the like are not legally "murder", they are highly relevant in an article on murder law (and not just of historical interest)  to explain the law or cover the situation, which may be looked up via murder, or with curiosity as to its relation to murder, or because rulings exist and cases will happen where the court has to decide if a case was murder or assisting suicide (and case by case could be decided between the two by the jury). FT2 (Talk | email) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assisted suicide 

message: I am going to cut the first paragraph of the section headed "Queen's peace". This article is not interested in what the Queen's peace is or isn't. The only thing that it is interested in that respect is in who can and cannot be a victim of this offence, that is to say who is and isn't under the Queen's peace. But it is not interested in the concept of the Queen's peace beyond that and the only further explanation of it that should be provided, beyond who is and isn't protected by it, is a link to the article Queen's peace. The paragraph in question reproduces the introduction to that article, with the exception of the following passage, which might be merged into it:
:In more general terms it refers to the normal conditions which all citizens are entitled to enjoy. The term is often encountered in the lesser offences of "breach of the peace" (meaning breaching the Queen's peace) and "disturbing the peace" (various public order offences).
Also, that passage is wrong in suggesting that breach of the peace is an offence, as opposed to conduct for which their is a power of arrest and bind over (not the same thing). James500 (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In mediaeval times a person could be declared an outlaw, losing the right to the protection of the monarch's peace.
James500 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section headed "Queen's peace" 

message: I have replaced the following passage, with this edit, because there was no source cited for it, "mediaeval times" is unacceptably vague, the book by Pollock and Maitland that appears to be the source in the article Outlaw only goes up to "before the time of Edward I", and Historia Placitorum Coronae appears to me to say that after a period of doubt, the killing of outlaws came to be considered to be unlawful.
:In mediaeval times a person could be declared an outlaw, losing the right to the protection of the monarch's peace.
James500 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Outlaws

message: I have removed content with this edit as it cited no source and it was not clear to me that it was compatible with what is said in Archbold. James500 (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Murder in English law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426034959/http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc290_Partial_Defences_to_Murder.pdf to http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc290_Partial_Defences_to_Murder.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: This article asserts that marital coercion was a "statutory defence", which means a statute (act of Parliament or similar) created it. But the article Marital coercion says nothing about such a statute, which leads me to believe it was a common law defence. Hairy Dude (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marital coercion 

message: As per the opening sentence, shouldn't the title be "Murder in the law of England and Wales"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title