Homicide Case Law Flashcards
(14 cards)
Murray Wright Ltd
Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organization cannot be convicted as a principal offender.
R v Myatt
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.
R v Tomar
- Deceased threatened/feared/deceived by the defendant.
- That threat/fear/deception caused the deceased to do the act that caused their death.
- Act was a natural consequence of the defendant’s actions. A reasonable/responsible person in the defendant’s position at time could have reasonably foreseen consequences.
- The foreseeable actions of the deceased contribute in a significant way to their death.
R v Horry
Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt.
The circumstantial evidence should be so compelling as to convince a jury that no other rational hypothesis other than murder can account for the facts.
R v Piri
S167(b) or (d)
Recklessness involves a conscious and deliberate risk-taking.
The degree of risk of death foreseen by the defendant must be more than negligible or remote.
The defendant must recognize a “real or substantial risk” that death would ensue.
R v Desmond
S167(d)
Not only must the object be unlawful, but also the defendant must know that their act is likely to cause death.
It must be shown that their knowledge accompanied the act causing death.
R v Mane
For a person to be an accessory, the offence must be complete at the time of their criminal involvement.
One cannot be convicted of accessory after the fact of murder when the act of their alleged criminal conduct was completed before the homicide was complete.
R v Blaue
Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.
R v Cottle
(Burden of proof [of insanity])
As to the degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea [of insanity] is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a balance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.
R v Clark
(Insanity)
The decision as to the defendant’s insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessarily unreasonable.
However, where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by surrounding facts, a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence that the defendant did not know or had been unable to know that their act was morally wrong.
R v Codere
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character.
It does not involve consideration of the defendant’s moral perception or their knowledge of the morality of the act.
Therefore, a person so deluded that they cut someone’s neck believing it is a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of the act.
R v Cottle
(Automatism)
Automatism is doing an act without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards.
Temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves them able to exercise bodily movements.
R v Joyce
Compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed.
Police v Lavelle
It is permissible for UC 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 offend.
