Case Laws Flashcards
(18 cards)
Murray Wright Ltd - Homicide defined
Because the killing must be done by a human being.
An organisation cannot be convicted as a principal offender.
R v Myatt - By unlawful act s160(2)(a) Culpable homicide
It must be an act that likely to do harm to the deceased.
R v Tomars - Threats, fear of violence and deception
- Was the deceased threatened, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
- If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
- Was the act the natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sense that any reasonable and responsible people in the defendant’s position could have foreseen the consequences?
- Was the foreseeable actions of the victim contribute significantly to their death?
R v Horry - Where body is not located
- Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain
- And have no ground for reasonable doubt
- That the circumstantial evidence should be so cogent and compelling as to convince a jury that
- Upon no rational hypothesis other than murder
Can the facts be accounted for.
Cameron v R - Recklessness
- Recklessness can be established:
- If the defendant recognises that there is a real possibility that
- His/her actions would bring about the proscribed result, and/or
- The proscribed circumstances existed;
And having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
R v Piri - Recklessness
Recklessness involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking.
The degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused under 167(b) & 167(d) must be more than negligible or remote.
R v Desmond - Killing in pursuit of an unlawful object: 167(d) Murder defined
The object must be unlawful, also the accused must know that his act is like to cause death.
R v Murphy - Intent must be established Attempt to commit an offence
When proving an attempt to commit an offence,
it must be shown that the accused’s intention was to commit the substantive offence.
Eg. actual intent to kill must be established in a case of attempted murder.
R v Harpur - Several acts together may constitute an attempt
The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops…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 - Accessory after the fact to murder
For a person to be an accessory, the offending must happen after the fact of murder.
R v Blaue - Preventable death
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.
R v Forrest and Forrest - proof of age
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.
R v Cottle - Burden of proof
It is up to the defence to prove the defendant is insane, to the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities.
R v Clark - Burden of proof
The decision of insanity is for the JURY to decide.
A verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessarily unreasonable.
The jury’s verdict must be based on evidence that the defendant did not/unable to know that his act was morally wrong.
R v Codere - Nature and quality of the act
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 Cottle - Automatism definition
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 movement.
R v Joyce - Presence (compulsion)
The compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed.
Police v Lavelle - Leading precedent of the defence of entrapment
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 person’s interest or willingness to so offend.
