CASE LAW Flashcards
(25 cards)
What is the case law for an ORGANISATION being a party to MURDER?
MURRAY WRIGHT LTD
Because the killing must be done by a human being, an ORGANISATION cannot be convicted as a principal.
What is the case law for an UNLAWFUL act that is inherently DANGEROUS?
R v MYATT
Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under s160 for the purpose of culpable HOMICIDE IT MUST BE AN ACT LIKELY TO DO HARM TO THE DECEASED or to some class of persons of whom he was one.
What did the court in R v Lee say about the Common Law understanding of what it is to be “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS”?
It must be OBJECTIVELY DANGEROUS and “some harm” must mean more than TRIVIAL.
What did R v Tomars formulate regarding threats, fear or deception causing death? (4 steps)
(1) Was the deceased? THREATENED, in fear, or deceived
(2) Did this CAUSE the deceased to do the act causing their own death?
(3) Was this act REASONABLY FORESEEABLE?
(4) Did the VICTIMS ACTIONS CAUSE their death?
What case law applies to where NO BODY is located?
Horry:
Death should be proved by such circumstances as render it MORALLY CERTAIN and leave no grounds for REASONABLE DOUBT.
What is the case law for RECKLESSNESS
Cameron:
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognized that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his actions would bring about the proscribe result and / or
(ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
What case law would be used to support the level of RECKLESSNESS sufficient for a charge under sections 167(b) or (d)?
Piri:
…The accused must recognize a real or substantial risk that death would be caused…
(Short version)
What case law is used with s167(d) Killing in pursuit of an unlawful object, to connect the UNLAWFUL ACT CAUSING DEATH with the KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH?
Desmond:
The accused must know his UNLAWFUL ACT is LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH.
(Short version)
s173 Attempted Murder
What case law is used in relation to the requirement to prove INTENT?
Murphy
In proving an attempt, it must be shown that the accused INTENDED to commit the offence. The Crown must show the accused intended to kill.
173 Attempted murder
What case law looks at collective conduct viewed cumulatively?
Harpur
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point where the conduct in question stops. The defendants conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering what remains to be done is always relevant though not determinative.
Simester and Brookbanks present 2 questions, either of which if answered affirmatively would constitute and attempt. What are the 2 questions?
(1) Has the offender gone beyond mere PREPARATION?
(2) Has he commenced execution?
What case law is used for 176 ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT TO MURDER?
Mane
For a person to be an ACCESSORY the offence must be COMPLETE.
In s165 Causing death that might have been prevented,
What case law refuted the defense that ‘the victim refused to stop this end coming about and therefore broke the causal connection between the act and death”?
Blane
“Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.”
(Liability depends on the mens rea not on the victim’s subsequent actions.
In R v Rapira, What level of knowledge is evidential that the child knew the act was wrong or unlawful?
Any admissions made by the young person are inadmissible. E.g. “I robbed the house”.
What case law is used in relation to proof of age?
Forrest and Forrest:
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of age
Best evidence of proof of age, what was held by R v Clancy as being best evidence as to date and place of birth:
(1) Person attending the birth
(2) Mother
(3) Birth Certificate - if available but not essential
What case law sets the standard of proof for the defendant before a Jury when proving their INSANITY?
What does the case laws say?
Cottle:
A PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES is sufficient rather than EXCLUDING ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
What case law answers the question and decides a verdict of insanity? And what does the case law say?
Clark:
The JURY DECIDES the verdict of insanity based on finding the defendant had not known or was unable to know that his act was MORALLY WRONG
What are the two elements of the M’Naughten’s Rule:
- Did not understand the nature and quality of their act, or
- Did not know that their act was wrong (legally or morally).
What case law defines the term, NATURE AND QUALITY of an act?
What does it say?
Codere:
NATURE AND QUALITY means the PHYSICAL CHARACTER of the act. It does not refer to any MORAL PERCEPTION.
What case law deals with the subject matter AUTOMATISM?
What does it say?
RV Cottle:
A temporary ECLIPSE of CONSCIOUSNESS that nevertheless leaves the person able to exercise BODILY MOVEMENTS
Automatism.
Keech v Pratt held that:
if a defendant can show their intoxication was not their fault (e.g., due to automatism), they may avoid liability.
What case law deals with the matter of compulsion?
What does this caselaw say?
RV Joyce:
The person doing the compelling must be PRESENT during the offence.
What is the case law around entrapment?
And what does it say?
(Living with) Lavelle:
It is permissible for undercover offices to merely provide the OPPORTUNITY. As long as the officers did not initiate the person‘s interest to offend.
