All Case Law

Question 1

Murray Wright Ltd

Answer 1

Murray Wright Ltd:

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

Question 2

R v Myatt

Answer 2

R v Myatt:

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 3

R v Tomars

Answer 3

R v Tomars formulates the issues in the following 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 sense that reasonable and responsible people in the defendant’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 4

Cameron v R

Answer 4

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 proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable

Question 5

R v Piri

Answer 5

Recklessness here involves a conscious, deliberate risk taking. The degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused under either s167(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 6

R v Desmond

Answer 6

R v Desmond

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 7

R v Harpur

Answer 7

R v Harpur

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.

Question 8

R v Mane

Answer 8

R v Mane

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 9

Newbury and Jones

Answer 9

1. The defendant must intentionally do an act
2. The act must be unlawful
3. The act must be dangerous
4. The act must cause death

Question 10

R v Blaue

Answer 10

R v Blaue

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

Question 11

R v Tarei

Answer 11

Life support is not “treatment” under S166. To withdraw life support does not cause death but removes the possibility of extending the person’s life through artificial means.

Question 12

R v Forrest and Forrest

Answer 12

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

Question 13

R v Cottle

Answer 13

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 14

R v Clark

Answer 14

The decision as to an 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’s 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 15

M’Naghten’s Rules

Answer 15

It is based on the person’s 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:

• the nature and quality of their actions, or
• that what they were doing was wrong.

Question 16

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

R v Cottle

Answer 17

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 18

R v Joyce

Answer 18

R v Joyce

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

Question 19

Police v Lavelle

Answer 19

Police v Lavelle

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.

Of note

The Court of Appeal held that the undercover officers were merely providing L the opportunity to recruit (and live off the earnings) of women involved in prostitution, an activity the evidence showed he was already willing to engage in.

Question 20

R v Murphy

Answer 20

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.