Must Know Case Law

Question 1

What did the court say in Murray Wright Ltd?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 1

Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation(such as a hospital for food company) cannot be convicted as a prinicpal offender.

Question 2

What did the court say in R v Myatt?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 2

[Before a breach of any Act, regulation or bylaw would be an unlawful act under s 160 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 who he was one.

Question 3

What did the court say in R v Tomars?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 3

Formulates the issues in the follwoing way:
1. Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the defendant?
2. If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
3. Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant, in the sences that reasonable and responsible people in the defenant’s position at the time could reasonably hahve foreseen the consequence?
4. Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute ina [significant] way to his death.

Question 4

What did the court say in R v Horry?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 4

Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt - that the circumstanctial 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.

Question 5

What did the court say in Cameron v R?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 5

Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or
(ii) that the rposcribed circumstances exitsed; and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.

Question 6

What did the court say in R v Piri?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 6

Recklessness [here] involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused under either s 167(b) or (d) must be more than negligible or remote. The accused must recognise a “real or substantial risk” that death would be caused:

Question 7

What did the court say in R v Desmond?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

What did the court say in R v Murphy?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 8

When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that thet accused’s intention was to commti the substantive offence. For example, in a case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to extablish an actual intent to kill:

Question 9

What did the court say in R v Harpur?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 9

{The Court may} have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up tot he point when tthe 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.

Question 10

What did the court say in R v Mane?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 10

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 crinial conduct was wholly completed before the offence of homicide was completed.

Question 11

What did the court say in R v Blaue?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 11

Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.

Question 12

What did the court say in R v Forrest and Forrest?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 12

The best evidence possible in the circumstances shoudl be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age.

Question 13

What did the court say in R v Cottle?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 13

As to degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a preponderence of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.

Question 14

What did the court say in R v Clark?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 14

The decision as to an accused’s insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidnece is not necessarilty unreasonable. But where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence which in this case show that the accused did not and had bee unable to know that his act was morally wrong.

Question 15

What did the court say in R v Joyce?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 15

The Court of Appeal decided that the compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed.

Question 16

What did the court say in Police v Lavelle?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

What did the court say in R v Codere?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 17

The nature and queality of the act means the physical character of the act. THe phrase does not invovle any considreation of the accused’s moral perception nor his konwledge 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.

Question 18

What did the court say in R v Cottle?

Must Know Case Law

Answer 18

Doing somehting without knowledge of it and without memroy afterwards of having done it - a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.