Case Law Flashcards

(18 cards)

1
Q

Murray Wright LTD

A

Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation (such as hospital or food company) cannot be convicted as a principal offender.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v Myatt: Unlawful Act

A

The unlawful act must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased or to some class of persons of whom he was one.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R v Tomars: 160(2)d) Threats, fear of violence and deception

A
  1. Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
  2. If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
  3. Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendants position at the time could reasonably have forseen the consequence?
  4. Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a significant way to his death?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Horry: No body

A

Death should be probable by such evidence that render it morally certain and leave no grounds for reasonable doubt. That the circumstantial evidence be so cogent and compelling as to convince a jury that upon no rational hypothesis other than murder can the facts be accounted for.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Cameron v R: Recklessness

A

The Defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that his or her actions would lead to the proscribed result and/or that the proscribed circumstances existed and having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Piri: Recklessness

A

Recklessness involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk of death forseen by the accused under 167 (b) or (d) must be more than negligible or remote.
The accused must recognise a real or substantial risk that death would be caused

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Desmond: Killing in pursuit of unlawful object 167(d)

A

Not only must the object be unlawful, but also the accused must know that his act is likely to cause death. It must be shown that his knowledge accompanied the act causing death.

For example, blowing up a prison wall to free prisoners

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Murphy: Attempts

A

When proving an attempt to commit an offence, it must be shown that the accused’s intentional was to commit the substantive offence. For example, in the case of attempted murder, it is necessary for the crown to establish an actual intent to kill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R V Mane: Accessory

A

For a person to be an accessory the offence must be complete at the time of the criminal involvement. One cannot be convicted of being an accessory after fact of murder when the actual reus of the alleged criminal conduct was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was completed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Forrest and Forrest

A

The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be produced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v Clark: Insanity

A

The decision as to an accused’s insanity is ALWAYS for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessarily unreasonable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v Codere: Insanity

A

The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v Joyce: Compulsion

A

The court of appeal decided that the compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Harpur: Attempts

A

The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops. The defendants conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Blaue: Preventable death

A

Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Cottle: insanity

A

As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury by balance of probabilities

17
Q

R v Cottle: Automatism

A

Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it. A temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.

18
Q

Police v Lavelle

A

It is permissible for undercover officers to merely provide the opportunity for someone who is ready and willing to offend, as long as the officers did not initiate the persons interest or willingness to offend.