Case Law Flashcards
Murray Wright Ltd
Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation cannot be convicted as a principal offender (Murray Wright Ltd).
R v Tomars
Forcing a victim to do an act which causes their death is culpable homicide (Think the Saw movies).
The defendant must reasonably foresee the act as an option open to the victim.
The test for this is found in R v Tomars:
- Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
- If so, did such threats/fear/deception cause the deceased to do the fatal act?
- Should the defendant have reasonably foreseen the consequence?
- Did the foreseeable action of the victim significantly contribute to their death?
R v Myatt
To be an unlawful act for the purposes 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. (R y Myatt)
R v Horry
Death needs to be proved by such circumstances that render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt. Murder must be the only rational hypothesis. (R v Horry)
R v Harney
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. It involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of action regardless of risk. (R v Harney)
R v Piri
Recklessness involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of the risk of death foreseen by the defendant under s167(b) or (d) must be more that negligible or remote. The accused must recognise a “real and substantial risk” that death would be caused. (R v Piri)
R v Desmond
In relation to s167(d) - Killing in pursuit of an unlawful purpose:
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. (R v Desmond)
R v Murphy
When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused’s intention was to commit the substantive offence. For example, in a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to establish an actual attempt to kill. (R v Murphy)
R v Harpur
“The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops and the defendant’s conduct may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative.”
R v Mane
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 the fact of murder when the actus reus of the alleged criminal conduct was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was completed. (R v Mane)
Basically, you can’t be an accessory after the fact if you help the bad man before the victim dies.
R v Blaue
those who use violence must take their victim as they find them. In this case a Jehovah’s witness refuse a blood transfusion for a stab wound and died. It was held that there was no break in the causal link between the stabbing and death.
R v Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age. (R v Forrest and Forrest)
R v Cottle (Insanity)
Talking about the level of proof required for an insanity defence:
“It is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a preponderance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.”
This is basically the balance of probabilities.
R v Clark
“The decision as to an accused’s insanity is always for the jury, but if unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence.”
R v Codere
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involve any consideration of the accused’s moral perception nor his knowledge of the moral quality of the act. Thus a person who is so deluded that he cuts a woman’s throat believing that he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act. (R v Codere)
