Case Law Flashcards
R v MYATT (SA) (3h) breach of ARRB=UA 160 culpable h, act likely harm.
[Before a breach of any Act, regulation, or bylaw would be an unlawful act under s160 for the purposes of a culpable homicide]
it must be an act likely to do harm to the deceased, or to some class of person of which he was one.
R v TOMARS (SA) (3h) 4 Qs 4 questions - threats fear deception 1. Was he? 2.did they cause? 3. Natural consequence? 4. Foreseeable contribute?
- Was the deceased threatened by, in fear of or decieved by the defendant
- If they were, did such threats, fear or deception cause the deceased to do the act that caused their death?
- Was the act a natural consequence of the actions of the defendant? Reasonable person in defendants position reasonably seen the consequences?
- Did the foreseeable actions of the deceased contribute in a (significant) way to his death?
R v HORRY (SA) (3h)de pv circ morally certain no GRD
Death should be provable by such circumstances as render it morally certain and leave no grounds for reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence so compelling as to convince a jury no other option.
R V HARNEY (SA) (2 h) CD unjustified
Conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk.
Proof the consequences could well happen, together with intention to continue regardless of risk.
R v PIRI (SA) (4h) Rek:CD risk RN s167 bd
Recklessness involves conscious and deliberate risk taking.
The degree of risk of death foreseen by the accused under s167b or d must be more than negligible or remote.
The accused must recognize a real and substantial risk that death would be caused.
R V MURPHY (SA) (3H) Attempt - AICSO
Attempt
AICSO - MURDER - INTENT TO KILL
When proving an attempt to commit an offence it must be shown that the accused intention was to commit the substantial offence.
For example, in the case of attempted murder it is necessary for the Crown to establish an actual intent to kill.
R V FORREST AND FORREST R V CLANCY (SA) (3 h)
Best evidence possible Victim age
The best evidence possible for proof of the victims ages, e.g birth cert or mother giving evidence
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.
R V COTTLE (SA) (1h) SPE PP
Degree of proof - preponderance of probabilities
Degree of proof - it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a preponderance of probabilities without excluding all reasonable doubt.
R V CODERE (SA)(5h) NQ = PC, no PeKn
nature quality equals physical character not perception or knowledge
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. Does not involve consideration for moral perception or knowledge, e.g 1m male thinking he’s cutting bread when cutting a throat
R V COTTLE 2 (1h) Automatism w/o K/M, EcCo Bo Mo
Doing without knowledge/memory, eclipse of consciousness, excessive body movmnt AUTOMATISM
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it, a temporary eclipse of consciousness but able to excercise bodily movement.
R V KAMIPELI (MC) (2h)INTX Def = RD StMi
For intoxication to succeed as a defense, all you need to establish is reasonable doubt about the defendant state of mind during the offence
R V COX (MC) IVFF (1 highlighted)
Consent must be informed voluntary free and full, given by rational person. Person in position to form rational judgment.
R V DESMOND (1h) OU, KA=D
UNLAWFUL, KNOWLEDGE ACT = DEATH
Not only just the object be unlawful, but also the accused must know that his act is likely to cause death. Knowledge + act caused death.
R V TAIREI (MC) (unhighlighted)
WLSNT166
Withdrawal of life support not treatment under 166
Learn in full
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.
POLICE v LAVELLE (SA) (1h)UC permisble opportunity
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.
