Multi-Choice 2 Flashcards
(19 cards)
Outline S25 CA 1961, ignorance of the law:
The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.
Proximity relating to attempts:
Proximity is a question of law; it is a question that is decided by the judge based on the assumption that the facts of the care are proved.
Children aged 10-13 years of age charged with murder or manslaughter:
Children aged 10 to 13 who are charged with murder or manslaughter are usually handled under youth justice laws. However, these charges will be heard in the High Court after the first court appearance.
Section 162 CA 1961:
‘A year and a day’
162: Death must be within 1 year and a day (applies to culpable homicide, murder, manslaughter and infanticide)
(1) You can’t be charged with causing someone’s death if they die more than a year and a day after the act or omission that caused it.
(2) The countdown starts from the day of the last unlawful act that led to death.
(3) If the cause of death was failing to do something legally required, the time starts from the day the failure stopped.
(4) If both an act and omission caused death, the time starts from whichever happened last—the act or the end of the omission.
What are the three specific causations of homicide in S160(2)(d)?
Threats, fear of violence or deception.
What does ‘R v Myatt’ state about an ‘unlawful act’ in respect of S160(2)(a), CA 1961 -
Before a violation of any law can be considered an unlawful act for culpable homicide, the act must be something that could harm the victim or a group of people the victim was part of.
What is the difference between murder and manslaughter?
The critical distinction is whether the offender ‘intended’ to kill the deceased or to harm them in a way they knew might result in death.
What was held in ‘R v Piri’:
Recklessness is when someone knows there’s a real risk their actions could cause death, but they do it anyway. The risk must be more than just small or unlikely.
Two people get into a sudden fight and one person dies from injuries received during the fight. What statement is correct in relation to any offfence’s the survivor is liable for?
If the fact there was a fight negates that the defendant had the required mens rea to bring a charge of murder within S167, the proper verdict is manslaughter.
Which of the below circumstances is culpable homicide?
“If a person intends to kill someone, or is so reckless that they cause serious harm intending to kill, and accidentally kills a different person instead, they are still responsible.”
Considering ‘R v Murphy’, it was held that when proving a charge of attempted murder that:
The defendant must do or omit some act(s) that display an intent to commit the full offence.
Gary and Charles make a suicide pact and prepare to end their lives using a pistol. Charles wants to go first but can’t bring himself to pull the trigger so asks Gary to shoot him which Gary does putting a single bullet in Charles’s head. Gary then shoots himself in the chest but misses his heart and he survives. Is Gary guilty of any offence and if so, what offence?
Gary is guilty of manslaughter
Gary and Charles make a suicide pact and prepare to end their lives by overdosing on IV morphine. Both self-administer morphine into their own veins together. Gary dies from the overdose, but Charles survives.
Is Charles guilty of any offence, and if so, what offence?
Charles is guilty of being a party to a death under a suicide pact and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
John and Eddie decide to kill themselves together by self-administering a cocktail of drugs. Eddie dies as a result, but John survives. Explain what criminality John is liable for if any.
John is guilty of being a party to a death under a suicide pact and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
Polnareff and Mohammed are talented wizards. One day, while pondering their orbs, they both decide to kill themselves. Polnareff and Mohammed both self-administer a special magical potion of ‘instant death’. As a result, Polnareff instantly dies. However, Mohammed’s potion was brewed incorrectly, and as a result he survived. What is Mohammed liable for?
Mohammed is liable under section 180(2) as he survived the suicide pact and did not administer the potion to Polnareff. He is guilty of being a party to a death under a suicide pact.
What is the definition of a parent in relation to section 152
A parent or a person in place of a parent who has care or is in charge of a child.
A French man travels to NZ and doesn’t know that you must drive on the left side of the road. Subsequently, he runs some poor Marnus over and absolutely splatters him. Section 25 details that the defence of ignorance of the law cannot be used for any offence. who does this apply to?
All persons in New Zealand, whether visiting or permanent residents.
Mandy is on trial for murder. It is discovered that Mandy had formed the intent to commit the offence, and then drank 2 bottles of whisky to gain ‘Dutch Courage’ to commit it. Which of the following is correct?
The defendant is disqualified from using a defence of intoxication or automatism.
Dio is on trial for the theft of Jonathan’s dead body. It is discovered that prior to the murder, Dio has consumed 37 bottles of Blueberry Soju. R v Kamipeli makes it clear that for the defence of intoxication to succeed as a defence –
The defence only needs to establish reasonable doubt about the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offence
