013

Question 1

Define R v Tarei? #

Answer 1

Withdrawal of any form of life support system is not “treatment” under s166 Crimes Act 1961. To withdraw life support does not cause death but removes the possibility of extending the person’s life through artificial means.

Question 2

What was held in R v Kamipeli? #

Answer 2

It does not have to be shown that the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea, merely that, because of their drunken state, they did not have the proper state of mind to be guilty

for intoxication to succeed as a defence, all you need to establish is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s required state of mind at the time of the offence. This is different to what is in the cue cards floating around.

Question 3

Define R v Cox?

Answer 3

Consent must be full, voluntary, free and informed, freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement.

Question 4

What was held in R v Mane? #

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

What does R v Myatt state about an unlawful act in respect of section 160(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961? #

Answer 5

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 whom he was one

Question 6

What was held in R v Tomars?

Answer 6

Formulates the issues in the following way:

1. Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or deceived by the accused?
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 accused, in the sense that reasonable and responsible people in the accused’s position at the time could reasonably have foreseen the consequences?
4. Did these foreseeable actions of the victim contribute in a [significant] way to his death?

Question 7

Discuss the case R v Forrest & Forrest and outline the case law?

Answer 7

In R v Forrest & Forrest two men were charged with having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl who had run away from Child Welfare custody. At trial the girl produced her birth certificate and gave evidence herself that she was the person named in the certificate.

The men successfully appealed their convictions on the grounds that the Crown had not adequately proved the girl’s age. The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.

Question 8

What was held in R v Ranger? #

Answer 8

If this accused did really think that the lives of herself and her son were in peril because of the deceased, enraged after the struggle, might attempt to shoot them with a rifle near at hand, then it would be going too far, we think, to say that the jury could not entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether a pre-emptive strike with a knife would be reasonable force in all the circumstances.

Question 9

Explain R v Horry? #

Answer 9

Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave 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.

Explanation to why no body is needed for murder – No, a body is not required to prove death of a person has occurred. Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no ground for reasonable doubt

Question 10

What was held in R v Harney? #

Answer 10

“Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk.
In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well
happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless
of risk.”

Question 11

What was held in R v Cottle? (Burden of Proof of insanity) #

Answer 11

As to degree of proof, 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.

Question 12

Outline R v BLAUE? #

Answer 12

Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them. “The victim was a Jehovah’s witness and was stabbed several times. Doctors told her she required a blood transfusion however she reused upon religious beliefs and subsequently died the next day. BLAUE tried to appeal the conviction of manslaughter saying her beliefs were contrary to her death however and the refusal was unreasonable however the appeal was dismissed.

Question 13

What was held in R v Clancy?

Answer 13

“The best evidence as to the date and place of a child’s birth will normally be provided by a person attending at the birth or the child’s mother … Production of the birth certificate, if available, may have added to the evidence but was not essential.”

Question 14

LAVELLE - What was held in Police v Lavelle? #

Answer 14

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. Define

“Entrapment” Entrapment occurs when an agent of an enforcement body deliberately causes a person to commit an offence, so that person can be prosecuted.

In Nz courts have rejected entrapment as a defence per se, preferring instead to rely on the discretion of the trail judge to exclude evidence that would operate unfairly against the defendant.

Question 15

Outline “M’Naghten’s rules” #

Answer 15

The M’Naghten’s rules ‘or test’ is frequently used to establish whether or not a defendant is insane. It is based on a person ability to think rationally, so that if a person is insane they were acting under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind that they did not know 1) the nature and quality of their actions and 2) that what they were doing was wrong.

Question 16

Outline R v Codere? #

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Before a conviction can be obtained for manslaughter, where one of the sections referred to is section 150A (1) of the Crimes Act 1961, what must the prosecution prove? #

Answer 17

A very high degree of negligence or gross negligence

Question 18

Give an example when murder might be REDUCED to manslaughter even though the accused intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm?

Answer 18

Mitigating circumstances, such as a suicide pact, reduce what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter, even though the accused may have intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 19

What is involuntary manslaughter? #

Answer 19

Covers those types of unlawful killing in which the death is caused by an unlawful act or gross negligence. In such cases there has been no intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm:
Voluntary Manslaughter – Mitigating circumstances such as a suicide pact reduce what otherwise be murder to manslaughter, even though the defendant may have intended to kill or cause GBH.

Question 20

Can an organisation (as opposed to a human being) be convicted of murder or manslaughter? Explain your answer.

Answer 20

Murray Wright
No. Because the killing must be done by a human being, an organisation cannot be convicted as the principal offender. Moreover, although an organisation can be convicted as a party to manslaughter, with murder an organisation cannot be convicted as either the principal offender or a party to the offence because it is not possible for an organisation to serve the offence’s mandatory life sentence.

Question 21

What is the penalty for attempted murder? #

Answer 21

Everyone who attempts to commit murder is liable for a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years

Question 22

In a charge of attempt to murder, what is the Crown required to prove?

Answer 22

When a charge of attempt to murder is made, the Crown must establish the mens rea and actus rea as set out in s72 of the Crimes Act 1961. An intention to kill must be proved.

Question 23

Why is attempted murder one of the most difficult offences in the crimes act to prove beyond reasonable doubt?

Answer 23

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 intent to kill.

Question 24

Define “attempts” under sec 72(1) CA61? #

Answer 24

Everyone who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object, is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence intended, whether in the circumstances it was possible to commit the offence or not.

Question 25

Simester & Brookbanks – Test for proximity and preparation becoming an attempt: #

Answer 25

Has the offender done anything more than getting himself into a position from which he could embark on an actual attempt OR Has the offender actually commenced execution; that to say, has he taken a step in the actual crime itself.

Question 26

List the differences between counselling or attempting to procure murder (s174) and conspiracy to murder (s175)? #

Answer 26

Counselling or attempting to procure murder requires that the offence is to be committed in NZ whereas with conspiracy to murder, the murder can take place in NZ or elsewhere. Counselling or attempting to procure murder only applies if the murder is not in fact committed, whereas conspiracy to murder applies regardless of whether murder is committed or not.

Question 27

Define Homicide, section ??? of the CA 1961? #

Answer 27

s158 Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.

Question 28

What are the ingredient’s to accessory after the fact to murder? #

Answer 28

Knowing any person to be party to murder, receives, comforts, assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses evidence against that person in order to enable him to escape after arrest or to avoid conviction.

Question 29

In common law, allegations of culpable homicide have been supported where the offender has caused death by particular circumstances. List 4: #

Answer 29

* Committing arson * Giving child an excessive amount of alcohol to drink * Supplying heroin to the deceased * Conducting an illegal abortion * Throwing concrete from motorway overbridge into the path of approaching car.

Question 30

Under Sec 160(2)(d) CA61, TWO examples of culpable homicide which has been caused by the victims actions, prompts, threats of violence #?

Answer 30

* Jumps or falls out of a window because they think they are going to be assaulted * Jumps into river to escape an attack and drowns * Someone who has been assaulted and believes their life is in danger, jumps from a train and is killed.

Question 31

To establish proof of death, in relation to homicide, you must prove three key elements, they are? #

Answer 31

* Death occurred * Deceased is identified as the person who has been killed * The killing is culpable – Death can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Question 32

Outline Culpable Homicide Sec 160(1) and (2) CA61? #

Answer 32

(1) Homicide may be either culpable or not culpable. (2) Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person (a) By unlawful act or (b) By an omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe any lawful duty or (c) by both combined or (d) by causing that person by threats to fear and violence, or by deception, to so an act which causes his death e) by wilfully frightening a child under 16 or a sick person (3) - Except as per sec 178, culpable homicide is either murder or manslaughter (4) - homicide that is not culpable is not an offence

Question 33

Give two circumstances where culpable homicide is murder?

Answer 33

(a) If the offender means to cause the death of the person killed (b) If the offender means to cause the person killed any bodily injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensures or not. (c) If the offender means to cause death, or, being so reckless as aforesaid, means to cause such bodily injury as aforesaid to one person, and by accident or mistake kills another person, though he does not mean to hurt the person killed: (d) If the offender for any unlawful object does an act that he knows to be likely to cause death, and thereby kills any person, though he may have desired that his object should be effected without hurting any one

Question 34

Consent to death?

Answer 34

The law does not recognise the right of a person to consent to their being killed (s63 of the Crimes Act 1961). As a consequence, their consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of anyone else involved in the killing.

Question 35

A Question of Law relating to whether the condition is a disease of the mind is answered by whom? #

Answer 35

The Judge

Question 36

What the accused’s state of mind was at the time of the offence is a question decided by whom? #

Answer 36

The Jury

Question 37

What is the burden of proof for insanity?

Answer 37

The accused is not required to prove the defence of insanity beyond reasonable doubt, but to the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities.

Question 38

How do NZ Courts deal with a defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol or drugs? #

Answer 38

In NZ, the courts are likely to steer a middle course, allowing a defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol or drugs, to offences of basic intent only. They are likely to disallow the defence where the state of mind is obviously self-induced, the person is blameworthy, and the consequences could have been expected. the Court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that the offender lacked intention

Question 39

What is the likely result of a trial where the defendant is found to have been in a state of automatism from intoxication?

Answer 39

Complete acquittal.

Question 40

Define Insanity? #

Answer 40

Sec 23(1)- Everyone shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing or omitting an act until the contrary is proved Sec 23(2)- No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable – (a) Of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission OR (b) Of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right to wrong

Question 41

Define Automatism? #

Answer 41

Automatism can be best described as a state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.

Question 42

Define “Sane” & “Insane” Automatism (TWO TYPES – SANE & INSANE) #

Answer 42

Sane – The result of somnambulism (sleepwalking), a blow to the head or the effects of drugs Insane – The result of a mental disease

Question 43

No one is criminally responsible for the killing of another by any influence of the mind. What’s the exceptions to this rule? #

Answer 43

Wilfully frightening a child under 16yrs old | Wilfully frightening a sick person (Mentally or physically)

Question 44

Outline section 181 of the Crimes Act 1961? #

Answer 44

Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who disposes of the dead body of any child in any manner with intent to conceal the fact of its birth, whether the child died before, or during, or after birth

Question 45

In which COURT does a youth facing a charge of murder or manslaughter appear?

Answer 45

Young persons over 14 years of age are usually dealt with under the youth justice provisions of the CYPF Act although charges of murder and manslaughter will be heard in the High Court following the committal process in the Youth Court. - Charges filed in district court - 1st appearance youth court - Automatically transferred to high court for trail/sentence

Question 46

When a charge of infanticide is laid, who decides in the mother’s state of mind?

Answer 46

The Jury

Question 47

Section 159(1) and (2) of the Crimes Act 1961 defines when a child becomes a human being and is therefore able to be murdered under section 158. Detail the provisions of section 159(1) & (2)? #

Answer 47

159(1) a child becomes a human being when the meaning of this act when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel string is severed or not. 159(2) The killing of such a child is homicide if it dies in consequence of injuries received before, during or after death.

Question 48

State the ingredients of infanticide ? #

Answer 48

(s178 of Crimes Act 1961) Where a woman causes the death of any child of hers under the age of 10yrs in a manner that amounts to culpable homicide and where at the time of the offence the balance of her mind was disturbed, by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to that or any other child, or by reason of the effect of lactation, or by reasons of any disorder consequent upon childbirth or lactation, to such an extent that she should have been held fully responsible, she is guilty of infanticide, and not murder or manslaughter, and is liable of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.

Question 49

What are the legal duties of a parent / guardian under Sec 152 CA61? #

Answer 49

Everyone who is a parent or person in place of a parent who has actual care or charge of child under 18 has a legal duty; (a) to provide the child with the necessaries AND (b) to take reasonable steps to protect that child from injury.

Question 50

What are the ingredients to “Abandoning a child under 6yrs” under section 154 CA61?

Answer 50

Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who unlawfully abandons or exposes any child under the age of 6 years.

Question 51

Outline the culpability for children under 10 and children of the age of 10 but under the age of 14 years? #

Answer 51

- Under 10 - A child aged under 10yrs has an absolute defence # to any charge brought against them. Nevertheless even though the child cannot be convicted, you still have to establish whether or not they are guilty. - 10-14yrs – For children of the age of 10 but under the age of 14 years, it must be shown that the child knew their act was wrong or contrary to law. If this knowledge cannot be shown, the child cannot be criminally liable for the offence.

Question 52

When interviewing 10 – 13 year-old children for the offence of murder, what must be shown in addition to the mens rea and actus reus requirements for the child to be held criminally liable for the offence?

Answer 52

Must be shown that the child knew their act was wrong or contrary to law. If this knowledge cannot be shown, the child cannot be criminally liable for the offence

Question 53

From whom should you seek advice in relation to questioning children and young persons?

Answer 53

Seek advice from your District Youth Prosecutor to ensure compliance with the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, particularly in relation to questioning children and young persons.

Question 54

When a notice of an alibi is to be given by the defendant? #

Answer 54

Within 10 working days after the defendant is given notice under section 20 of the Criminal disclosure Act 2008.

Question 55

What must the defendant include in a notice of alibi? #

Answer 55

22(3)(a) of the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, Name and address of the witness, or if the name and address is not known to the defendant when the notice is given, any matter known by the defendant that might be of material assistance in finding that witness.

Question 56

Define Alibi?

Answer 56

“An alibi is the plea in a criminal charge of having been elsewhere at the material time: the fact of being elsewhere.

Question 57

What is the procedure when an alibi witness is interviewed? #

Answer 57

O/C should not interview alibi witness unless the prosecutor requests them to do so. The procedure being: • Advise the defence counsel of the proposed interview and give them a reasonable opportunity to be present • If the accused is not represented, endeavour to ensure the witness is interviewed in the presence of some independent person not being a member of the police. • Make a copy of a witness’s signed statement taken at any such interview available to the defence counsel through the prosecutor. Any information that reflects on the credibility of the alibi witness ca be withheld under s16(1)(o) #dont interview unless prosecutor requests

Question 58

If the defendant intends to call an expert witness during proceedings, what must they disclose to the prosecution?

Answer 58

* Any brief of evidence to be given or any report provided by what witness * If that belief or any such report is not available, a summary of the evidence to be given and the conclusions of any report to be provided. * This information must be disclosed at least 14 days before the date fixed for the defendants hearing or trial, or within any further time that the court may allow.

Question 59

Define the term “suicide pact”?

Answer 59

The term suicide pact means a common agreement between 2 or more persons having for its object the death of all of them, whether or not each is to take his own life; but nothing done by a person who enters into a suicide pact shall be treated as done by him in pursuance of the pact unless it is done while he has the settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact.

Question 60

Provide an overview of the culpability of persons involved in Suicide Pacts or help suicide? #

Answer 60

180(1)- Everyone who in pursuance of a suicide pact kills any other person is guilty of manslaughter and not of murder and is liable accordingly Because the law does not recognise a person’s right to consent to death, people who help another to commit suicide or who are part of a suicide pact but survive are responsible for the other person’s death. In such cases the surviving person is charged with manslaughter. 180(2)- Any survivor of a suicide pact is guilty of being a party to death (if death of another person within the pact ensures)

Question 61

Who decides whether there is evidence of self-defence?

Answer 61

The judge.

Question 62

What is the test of self-defence?

Answer 62

The test of self-defence is subjective.

Question 63

List the ingredients of self-defence or defence of another Sec 48 CA61? #

Answer 63

Everyone is justified is using in the defence of himself or another such force as in the circumstances as he believes them to be is reasonable to use.

Question 64

Three subjective criteria’s for Self-defence?

Answer 64

The degree of force permitted is tested initially under the following subjective criteria: • What are the circumstances that the defendant genuinely believes exist (whether or not it is a mistaken belief)? • Do you accept that the defendant genuinely believes those facts? • Is the force used reasonable in the circumstances believed to exist?

Question 65

Proximity is a question of law decided by whom?

Answer 65

The judge

Question 66

What is the relevant age of the person who is employed?

Answer 66

Under the age of 16

Question 67

Who is unable to give their consent?

Answer 67

- A Child − Someone who is unable to rationally understand the implications of their defence − Someone who is subject to force, threats of force or fraud.

Question 68

Provide three guidelines in respect of consent regarding ASSAULT?

Answer 68

Everyone has the right to consent to a surgical operation / Everyone has the right to consent to the infliction of force not involving bodily harm / No one has the right to consent to their death or injury likely to cause their death / No one has the right to consent to bodily harm un such a manner as to amount to a breach of the peace, or in prize fight or other exhibition calculated to collect together disorderly persons.

Question 69

You cannot use the defence of “consent or consent to assault” in the following cases?

Answer 69

* Aiding suicide * Criminal Actions * Injury likely to cause death * Bodily harm likely to cause a breach of the peace * Indecency offences * The placing of someone in a situation where they are at risk of death or bodily harm.

Question 70

What is the definition of the period “a year and a day” as outlined in Section 162(2) CA61?

Answer 70

The period of a year and a day shall be reckoned inclusive of the day on which the last unlawful act contributing to the cause of death took place.

Question 71

What is the term Grievous Bodily Injury and give an example? #

Answer 71

In subsection (1)(a) “grievous bodily injury” means harm that is very serious, such as injury to vital organs. To come within subsection (1)(c), the stopping of the victims breath must be done “wilfully”.

Question 72

Define “Omission to perform a legal Duty”?

Answer 72

This covers cases where nothing is done when there is a legal duty to act, and certain cases of positive conduct accompanied by a failure to discharge a legal duty, in particular a duty of care.

Question 73

Define “Wilfully Frightening”?

Answer 73

“Wilfully frightening” is regarded as intending to frighten, or at least be reckless as to this (Adams on criminal law)

Question 74

Define “Strict Liability”? #

Answer 74

Any offence that does not require an intent is called a strict liability offence and the only was a defendant can escape liability for such an offence is to prove a total absence of fault.

Question 75

Define “Ignorance of the law”? #

Answer 75

Sec 25 | The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him.

Question 76

Define “Compulsion”?

Answer 76

Compulsion is the act of compelling a person to do something against their will.

Question 77

In relation to compulsion, what does “immediate” mean?

Answer 77

It means at the scene from a person present at the time.

Question 78

What 3 points must be satisfied before a defence of “Compulsion” can be used? #

Answer 78

A person is protected from criminal responsibility if they have been compelled to commit the offence by someone at the scene who has threatened them that they would otherwise be killed or caused GBH. The accused must have genuinely believed the threats and must not be a party to any association or conspiracy involved in carrying out the threats.

Question 79

Outline Section 163 of the CA61? #

Answer 79

No one is criminally responsible for the killing of another by any influence of the mind alone, except by wilfully frightening a child under 16yrs or sick person, nor for the killing of another by any disorder or disease arising from such influence, except by wilfully frightening any such child as aforesaid or a sick person.

Question 80

What is required state of mind for section 167(b) of the CA61?

Answer 80

To show the accused’s state of mind meets the provisions of s167(b), you must establish that the accused: 1) Intended to cause bodily injury to the deceased 2) Knew the injury was likely to cause death 3) Was reckless as to whether death would ensue

Question 81

What in effect is a defence of mistake?

Answer 81

A defence of mistake is in effect a denial of intent.

Question 82

A hearsay statement is admissible in any proceeding if? #

Answer 82

(a) The circumstances relating to the statement provide reasonable assurance that the statement is reliable (b) either – i) the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness or ii) the judge considers the undue expense or delay would be caused if the maker of the statement were required to be a witness.

Question 83

Under section 20 define “Justified” and give two examples? #

Answer 83

In relation to any person, “justified” means that the person is not guilty of an offence and is not liable civilly. - Homicide committed in self-defence - Homicide committed to prevent suicide or commission off offence likely to cause immediate serious injury

Question 84

Statement taken off a “dying person”? #

Answer 84

A statement taken from a person who may die can be presented as evidence to court if they are dead at the time of the hearing and reasonable assurance of the statement’s reliability can be shown. Circumstances to consider; - The nature of the statement - The contents of the statement - The circumstances relating to the making of the statement - Circumstances relating to the veracity of the person making the statement - Circumstances relating to the accuracy of the Observation of the person

Question 85

No indefinite liability “Life Support”? #

Answer 85

An defendant will not be relieved of responsibility merely because a life support system is withdrawn in good faith, with the result that any possibility of survival for the statutory year and a day was lost.

Question 86

List 4 “statutory legal duties” in respect to 151 & 152 of the CA61?

Answer 86

* Provide the necessaries and protect form injury * Provide necessaries and protect from injury to your charges when you are a parent or guardian * Provide necessaries as an employer * Use reasonable knowledge and skill when performing dangerous acts such as surgery.

Question 87

Statutory duty of people in charge of “dangerous things” 156 of the CA61?

Answer 87

To take reasonable precautions to ensure people’s safety. Such things include motor vehicles, trains, animals, ships, weapons, machinery or explosives, and may include such things as the machinery inside a mussel factory, faulty scaffolding that collapses because of faulty erection and inspection, unfenced holes or other industrial-type incidents, depending on the circumstances.

Question 88

Most offences require an intent (Mens rea) what defence is generally available?

Answer 88

The defence of intoxication will be available to the defence to establish that the defendant did not have the required intent to carry out the offence.

Question 89

Would you be charged with any offence if you fatally injured another player during a rugby match? If so, what might the charges be?

Answer 89

Normally you would not be charged with the killing of another player if they died from injuries you caused while playing football. However, you would be guilty of manslaughter if your actions were considered likely to cause serious injury, as you should have been aware of this at the time and refrained from the action.

Question 90

If an offender intends to kill A but inadvertently strikes the fatal blow to B, is the offender still guilty of murder?

Answer 90

In a case where an offender intends to kill A but inadvertently strikes and kills B, the guilt of the offender is not affected. Section 167(c) states that if the offender means to cause the death of one person and by mistake or accident kills another, even though he did not mean to hurt the other person, then it is murder.

Question 91

When considering what charge to press when someone has been killed in a sudden fight, what do you need to consider?

Answer 91

You need to consider whether there was: − self-defence − the requisite mens rea for a murder/manslaughter charge.

Question 92

If a person is deemed to have been justified and not criminally liable for an offence, may they then be proceeded against in a civil action?

Answer 92

In relation to any person, “justified” means that the person is not guilty of an offence and is not liable civilly.

Question 93

Sec 167 (d) #

Answer 93

If the offences for any unlawful object does an act he knows to be likely to cause death and thereby kills any person, though he may have desired that his object should be effected without hurting anyone.

Question 94

R v Desmond #

Answer 94

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 95

R v Piri

Answer 95

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 negli9gible or remote. The accused must recognised a ‘real or substantial risk’ that death would be caused.

Question 96

``` Sec 168 (1)(a) Further definition of murder ```

Answer 96

a) If he means to cause Grievous bodily injury for the purpose of facilitating the commission of any of the offence in subsection (2), of facilitating the flight or avoiding the detention of the offence upon the commission or attempted commission, therefore or for the purpose of resisting lawful apprehension in respect of any offence whatsoever, and death ensues from such injury or (b)(c) Sec 168 (1)(b) If he administers any stupefying or over powering thing for any of the purposes aforesaid and death ensues from the effects thereof, Sec 168 (1)(c) If he by any means wilfully stops the breath of any person for any of the purposes aforesaid and death ensues..

Question 97

R v Harpur

Answer 97

(The court may) have regards to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops… the defendants conduct (may) be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done..is always relevant, though not determinative.

Question 98

Sec 166 #

Answer 98

- Everyone causes to another person any bodily injury, in itself of a dangerous nature, from which death results, kills that person, although the immediate causes of death be treatment, proper or improper, applied in good faith

Question 99

R V Clarke

Answer 99

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

Question 100

R V COTTLE- Automatism #

Answer 100

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 movements.

Question 101

‘dutch courage’ #

Answer 101

Evidence that a person formed an itent to commit a crime and then took drink and drugs as part of the method of committing the crime (dutch courage) will disqualify a fence of drunkenness or automatism

Question 102

R v JOYCE #

Answer 102

The court of appeal decided that the compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed

Question 103

List four statutory legal duties in respect of the Crimes Act 1961?

Answer 103

* Provide the necessaries and protect from injury (s151) * Provide necessaries and protect from injury to your charges when you are a parent or guardian (s152) * Provide necessaries as an employer (s153) * Use reasonable knowledge and skill when performing dangerous acts, such as surgery (s155) * Take precautions when in charge of dangerous things, such as machinery (s156) * Avoid omissions that will endanger life (s157).