## Facts

- John Willson Vickers broke into the cellar of a shop occupied by Miss Duckett, intending to steal money.
- Miss Duckett, an elderly woman living above the shop, discovered Vickers during the burglary.
- To avoid being recognized, Vickers violently attacked her, striking her multiple times.
- Miss Duckett died from the injuries inflicted in the assault.
- Vickers was charged with capital murder, convicted by a jury, sentenced to death, and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, after the Homicide Act 1957’s abolition of constructive malice, murder requires proof of an intent to kill rather than an intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
2. Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find the mens rea for murder on the basis that Vickers intended to cause grievous bodily harm.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal (Lord Goddard C.J.) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the murder conviction.
- The court held that “malice aforethought” is satisfied by an intent to kill or an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, where death results.
- The Homicide Act 1957 abolished constructive malice but did not change the rule that intent to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient for murder.
- On the evidence, the jury was entitled to infer at least an intent to cause grievous bodily harm from the nature of the attack and the circumstances of the burglary.

## Legal Principles

- “Malice aforethought” is a technical term meaning either (a) an express intent to kill or (b) an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, where the victim dies as a result.
- Abolition of constructive malice removes automatic murder liability for certain felony killings absent the required intent; it does not eliminate grievous bodily harm intent as a basis for murder.
- A jury may infer intent to cause grievous bodily harm from the defendant’s voluntary acts, including repeated blows and the surrounding circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that murder is established where the defendant voluntarily causes death with an intent to kill or an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and it upheld the conviction because the jury could infer at least an intent to cause grievous bodily harm from the defendant’s violent assault during the burglary.


R. v. Vickers, 2 All E.R. 741 (Eng. C.A. 1957)